JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for following reliefs:- (i) For quashing the order dated 04.06.2012 issued under the signature of respondent no.3 vide memo no.967 whereby and where under the said respondent without issuing any charge-sheet and without conducting any proceeding has ordered for permanent deduction of 10% from the pension of the petitioner is absolute disregard to the provision of Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. (ii) For quashing of the letter no.894 dated 16.08.2012 issued under the signature of respondent no.6 whereby and where under the said respondent has revised the pension of the petitioner from Rs.10,990/- per months to Rs.9891/- w.e.f. 01.08.07 by deducting 10% of the pension as per office order no.967 dated 04.06.2012. (iii) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith release/pay balance 10% of the pension amount which has been illegally deducted/recovered from the pension of the petitioner. 3. The facts as disclosed in the instant writ application are that in the year 2006, vide memo no.904 dated 17.06.2006, the respondents issued a show cause to the petitioner seeking explanation for disappearance of the basic file of one Meghnath Mahto; alleging therein that the petitioner was custodian of the service book and personal file of Sri Mahto. On 01.07.2006, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the aforesaid show cause notice and said reply was further forwarded to the higher authority. In the meantime, the petitioner superannuated from service on 31.07.2007 and the petitioner was paid his entire retrial benefits. However, the respondents vide Memo No.3137 dated 13.12.2007 sanctioned only 90% as provisional pension to the petitioner stating therein that due to non availability of certificate from BSEB with respect to charges/departmental proceeding/no dues certificates etc., only 90% of the pension has been sanctioned. However, on 04.06.2009 the respondent fixed final pension of the petitioner and issued Permanent Pension Order (PPO) sanctioning 100% pension to the petitioner and also sanctioned full gratuity amount. Pursuant to the said order the petitioner has received 10% of the pension and arrears thereof. 4. However, on 04.06.2009 the respondent fixed final pension of the petitioner and issued Permanent Pension Order (PPO) sanctioning 100% pension to the petitioner and also sanctioned full gratuity amount. Pursuant to the said order the petitioner has received 10% of the pension and arrears thereof. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that all of a sudden; without serving any charge-sheet and without initiating any proceeding, the respondents decided and proposed to punish the petitioner for the alleged misconduct by deducting 10% from the pension of the petitioner and accordingly issued a show cause notice on 08.06.2011 to which the petitioner filed a detailed explanation vide its reply dated 02.07.2011. However an order of deduction of pension has been passed, which is impugned in the instant application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 04.06.2012 purported to be issued under Rule 139(C) has been passed in contravention to the provision laid under Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules). He further submits that the letter no.894 dated 16.08.2012 issued in continuance to the impugned order dated 04.06.2012 is equally bad in law; as such, on the sole ground that it has been passed beyond a period of three years from the date of order of sanctioning of pension was first passed. As such, the impugned order as contained in memo no.967 dated 04.06.2012 and also letter no.894 dated 16.08.2012 may be quashed. 6. Mr. O.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent-Board (now JUVNL) submits that no irregularity has been committed by the respondent authority. He further submits that this period of three years has been counted from the date when 100% of pension was sanctioned to the petitioner i.e. on 04.06.2009. He further submits that before issuance of the impugned order proper show cause notice was issued and after looking into the reply filed by the petitioner, the respondents passed the impugned order. Mr. Tiwari further contended that no irregularity has been committed by respondent-JUVNL. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the relevant facts of the case it appears that the petitioner superannuated on 31.07.2007 and the respondents vide memo no.3137 dated 13.12.2007 sanctioned 90% provisional pension in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Tiwari further contended that no irregularity has been committed by respondent-JUVNL. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the relevant facts of the case it appears that the petitioner superannuated on 31.07.2007 and the respondents vide memo no.3137 dated 13.12.2007 sanctioned 90% provisional pension in favour of the petitioner. Further the said provisional pension was also modified and pursuant to order dated 04.06.2009 respondent fixed the final pension of the petitioner sanctioning 100% of the pension. However, all of a sudden an order has been passed on 08.06.2011 for the alleged misconduct and order has been passed for deducting 10% from the pension of the petitioner permanently. To decide the issue involved in the instant case, Rule 139 (C) of the Rules, is quoted herein below:- “139. (a)………… (b)…………. (C):- The State Government reserve to themselves the powers of revising an order relating to pension passed by subordinate authorities under their control, if they are satisfied that the service of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory or that there was proof of grave misconduct on this part while in service. No such power shall however, be exercised without giving the pensioner concerned a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to his pension, nor any such power shall be exercised after the expiry of three years from the date of the order sanctioning the pension was first passed.” 8. From bare perusal of sub-rule (C) of Rule 139 of the Rules, it transpires that though the respondent authorities were authorized to pass an order relating to pension if the service of the petitioner is not satisfactory. However rider has also been stipulated in the Rules itself which categorically stipulates that no such power shall be exercised without giving the pensioner concerned a reasonable opportunity of hearing and also such power shall not be exercised after the expiry of three years from the date of sanctioning the pension was first passed. 9. In the instant case, the order of sanctioning pension was first passed on 13.12.2007 and the impugned order has been passed on 04.06.2012. Even the show cause was issued beyond a period of three years i.e. on 08.06.2011. 9. In the instant case, the order of sanctioning pension was first passed on 13.12.2007 and the impugned order has been passed on 04.06.2012. Even the show cause was issued beyond a period of three years i.e. on 08.06.2011. In view of the specific time limit stipulated in Rule 139(C) of the Rules, this Court holds that the impugned order has been passed beyond the period of limitation as stipulated in Rule 139(C) of the Rules, as such; on this score alone, the instant writ application deserves to be allowed. 10. Consequently, the impugned order dated 04.06.2012 as contained in Memo No.967 and letter no.894 dated 16.08.2012 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to pass necessary order for paying the balance 10% of Pension including arrears thereof. 11. With the aforesaid terms the instant writ application has been allowed and disposed of.