ORDER : I.A. No.4930 of 2021 This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condoning the delay which has occurred in preferring the present appeal. However, the office has reported that in view of the order dated 27.04.2021 passed in Misc. Application No.665 of 2021 in suo motu Writ (Civil) No.03 of 2020 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the matter has to be treated to have been filed within time. 2. In the above view of the matter, no order for condonation of delay is required to be passed in the present Interlocutory Application as the appeal is being treated to be preferred within time. 3. I.A. No.4930 of 2021 stands disposed of accordingly. L.P.A. No.280 of 2021 4. The instant appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 17.02.2021 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.1439 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been allowed with a direction upon the respondents to release seized amount of Rs.5 lakh within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order; failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled for simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment. 5. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceedings, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :- It is the case of the writ petitioner that while the writ petitioner was working Government money amounting to Rs.5 lakh in cash was looted on 05.03.2011 at Koderma by some unidentified person. A criminal case was instituted and on conclusion of investigation, the incidence of looted amount of Rs.5 lakh was found to be true having no evidence of involvement of the petitioner, however, the looted amount was never recovered. When the looted amount remained unrecovered, the amount was running as outstanding balance against the writ petitioner in the books of account of the Government and, as such, recommendation was made by the then Regional Chief Conservator of Forest for waiving the said money as also to take decision for relinquishment of Government money as per the provision contained in Rule 62 (ii) of Jharkhand Finance Rules and accordingly the matter regarding writing off of Rs. 5 lakh was referred to the Finance Department for seeking advice and concurrence thereof. However, the Finance Department refused to do so and finally the decision has been taken on 13.03.2018 (impugned), whereby and whereunder Rs.5 lakh was directed to be recovered from the pending retiral benefits of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the same, preferred writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being W.P.(S) No.1439 of 2015. The learned Single Judge, after appreciating the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the amount of Rs.5 lakhs since has been recovered from the pending retiral dues without initiating any proceeding, has quashed the impugned order dated 18.03.2018 with a direction upon the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.5 lakh within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order, failing which, the refund will carry simple interest @ 6% per annum, which is the subject matter of the present intra court appeal having been filed by the State of Jharkhand. 6. Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned G.A.-I appearing for the appellants-State of Jharkhand, has submitted that since there is loss of money to the tune of Rs.5 lakh from the Government Exchequer, the Finance Department has taken decision to recover the said amount from the retiral benefits, therefore, the decision of the Finance Department cannot be said to suffer from an error but the learned Single Judge without appreciating that aspect of the matter, since has interfered with the impugned order dated 13.03.2018, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants-State, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 8. The admitted fact in the case in hand is that a sum of Rs.5 lakh was looted for which a criminal case was instituted. The investigation concluded in which the fact about looting of Rs.5 lakh has been found to be true. 8. The admitted fact in the case in hand is that a sum of Rs.5 lakh was looted for which a criminal case was instituted. The investigation concluded in which the fact about looting of Rs.5 lakh has been found to be true. The Administrative Department made recommendation for waiver of the amount but the said recommendation was not concurred by the Finance Department of the State of Jharkhand, rather a decision was taken to adjust the said amount from the retiral dues of the writ petitioner. 9. Therefore, admittedly there is no proceeding initiated either under Rule 43(b) or Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules or any other provision whatsoever, rather, the Finance Department took a decision to recover Rs.5 lakh from the retiral benefits of the writ petitioner and accordingly, Rs.5 lakh has been recovered from the Gratuity head which was to be paid in favour of the writ petitioner. 10. As such, the question which is required to be considered by this Court is – As to whether without initiating departmental proceeding, can any amount be recovered from the Gratuity? The legal position is very clear since once the public servant retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation, the relationship of employee and employer breaks and the pension is to be sanctioned by the State. If any recovery is to be made from the pension, the same can be made by resorting to the provision of Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules or Rule 139 thereof, as the case may be. 11. In the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar and Others [ (1971) 2 SCC 330 ], the right to receive pension has been held to be property within the meaning of Article 31(1) of the Constitution of India and by mere executive order the State has no power to withhold the same. Even in State of Jharkhand and Others v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Another [ (2013) 12 SCC 210 ], it has been laid down, taking into consideration the judgment rendered by Constitution Bench in the case of Deokinandan Prasad (supra), that no person shall be deprived of his property save by the authority of law. 12. Even in State of Jharkhand and Others v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Another [ (2013) 12 SCC 210 ], it has been laid down, taking into consideration the judgment rendered by Constitution Bench in the case of Deokinandan Prasad (supra), that no person shall be deprived of his property save by the authority of law. 12. The Finance Department of the State of Jharkhand has taken a decision refusing to adhere to the recommendation made by the Administrative Department for waiver of the amount. A decision was taken to adjust the amount of Rs.5 lakh from the retiral dues of the writ petitioner. 13. The further question arose that after superannuation, whether the Finance Department of the State of Jharkhand can be said to be competent authority to take such decision? Admittedly, the legal position is very clear since after retirement the pensioner becomes the pensioner of the State, therefore, any department of the State cannot have the jurisdiction to take decision to adjust any amount from the retiral dues of the superannuated employee without any proceeding in accordance with law. Therefore, according to the considered view of this Court, the decision of the Finance Department of the State of Jharkhand in issuing the impugned order, cannot be treated to be a justified order, rather, the same is held to be an order passed without the authority of law. 14. The learned Single Judge has come to the aforesaid conclusion and quashed the impugned order dated 13.03.2018 after taking the legal position into consideration that no proceeding has been initiated either under Rule 43(b) or Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules or any other provisions whatsoever. According to our considered view, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. 15. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.