JUDGMENT : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. 1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner seeking inter-alia a direction to the respondent authorities to disburse his retirement benefits including General Provident Fund [GPF], Leave Encashment, Group Insurance Scheme [GIS], Gratuity along with regular pension. A further direction has been sought for to grant interest from the date the pension was due, that is, 31.08.2024. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was a member of the Assam Engineering [Public Works Department] Service. The conditions of service of the members of the Assam Engineering [Public Works Department] Service are governed by the Assam Engineering [Public Works Department] Rules, 1978, a set of rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 3. On 12.03.2024, the petitioner was serving as Superintending Engineer, PWD [Planning], O/o the Chief Engineer, PWD [NH] Works, Assam under the Public Works [Buildings & National Highway] Department, Government of Assam. By a Notification dated 12.03.2024, issued under the hand of the Special Commissioner & Special Secretary to the Government of Assam, Public Works [B&NH] Department, the petitioner was placed under suspension under Rule 6[1][a] of the Assam Services [Discipline & Appeal] Rules, 1964 [‘the Rule, 1964’ and/or ‘the 1964 Rules’, for short] with immediate effect pending drawal of disciplinary proceeding. In the Notification dated 12.03.2024, it was mentioned, as reported by the respondent no. 3 vide a Letter dated 26.02.2024, that the petitioner while working as Superintending Engineer, PWD [Planning] O/o the Chief Engineer, PWD [NH Works], Assam had failed to maintain absolute integrity in discharging duties as Executive Engineer, PWD, Golaghat NH Division– cum–Authority Representative in execution of a scheme, ‘Strengthening of pavement from km 61/00 to km 69/00 and widening of 1.5 m paved shoulder on either side and strengthening from km 103/00 to km 106/00 of NH-39 under Annual Plan for the year of 2018-19 under Golaghat NH Division in the State of Assam on EPC Mode [Job no. 039/AS/2018-19/186]’ [‘the subject-work’, for short]. It was mentioned that the petitioner had accepted sub-contract proposal and subsequently issued Performance Certificate to the sub-contractor without prior intimation and approval of the respondent no. 3 thereby violating the terms of the Contract Agreement, as reported by the respondent no. 3 in his letter dated 26.02.2024. 039/AS/2018-19/186]’ [‘the subject-work’, for short]. It was mentioned that the petitioner had accepted sub-contract proposal and subsequently issued Performance Certificate to the sub-contractor without prior intimation and approval of the respondent no. 3 thereby violating the terms of the Contract Agreement, as reported by the respondent no. 3 in his letter dated 26.02.2024. The Notification further mentioned that it was reported that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had disposed of a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 9575/2023 wherein a direction was made to the Central Bureau of Investigation [CBI] to conduct an enquiry into the matter of issue of sub-contracting the subject-work and also to take action in accordance with law. The State Government had reached a satisfaction that it would be necessary and expedient to place the petitioner under suspension from service with immediate effect. 4. The Notification dated 12.03.2024 was followed by a Show Cause Notice dated 22.03.2024 issued under Rule 9 of the 1964 Rules read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India asking the petitioner to show cause as to why any of the penalties prescribed in Rule 7 of the 1964 Rules should not be inflicted on him against the three nos. of charges framed thereunder. A Statement of Allegation, a List of Documents and a List of Witnesses were enclosed to the Show Cause Notice as enclosures. On being served with the Show Cause Notice dated 22.03.2024, the petitioner submitted his Written Statement-in-Defence to the Show Cause Notice on 15.04.2024 traversing the statements and allegations in the Show Cause Notice. In his Reply, the petitioner had refuted the allegations brought against him by the Show Cause Notice. Subsequently on 20.04.2024, the petitioner submitted an Addendum to the Written Statement-in-Defence in continuation of his previous Written Statement-in-Defence giving certain clarifications. 5. The petitioner stating that his suspension period had been prolonged without holding any review, preferred a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3907/2024 before this Court seeking a direction to set aside his suspension order vide Notification dated 12.03.2024 with a further prayer to reinstate him into service. During the pendency of the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5. The petitioner stating that his suspension period had been prolonged without holding any review, preferred a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3907/2024 before this Court seeking a direction to set aside his suspension order vide Notification dated 12.03.2024 with a further prayer to reinstate him into service. During the pendency of the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3907/2024, a Notification came to be issued on 19.08.2024 under the hand of the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Public Works [B&NH] Department whereby the petitioner was reinstated into service, without prejudice to the disciplinary proceeding drawn up against him by the Show Cause Notice dated 22.03.2024 and the Preliminary Enquiry no. PE0172024A0001 registered by the CBI, Anti-Corruption Branch [ACB], Guwahati. The Notification further mentioned that on being reinstated, the petitioner would be posted as Superintending Engineer, PWD, Silchar Building Division against an existing vacancy. In view of issuance of the Notification dated 19.08.2024, the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3907/2024 was closed by an Order dated 21.08.2024. 6. Close on the heels of the Notification dated 19.08.2024 whereby the petitioner was reinstated into service, the petitioner stood retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.08.2024. The Special Commissioner & Special Secretary to the Government of Assam, Public Works [B&NH] Department had issued a Notification on 28.08.2024 to the effect that the petitioner would hand over the charge of Superintending Engineer, PWD, Silchar Building Division to an Executive Engineer, PWD in that Division. 7. Just a day prior to the petitioner’s retirement on superannuation, that is, on 30.08.2024, the disciplinary proceeding drawn up against the petitioner had been disposed of by an Order of even date passed by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Public Works Department. By the Order dated 30.08.2024, the petitioner was inflicted with a penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect under Rule 7[ii] of the Rules,1964. It was further observed that the period the petitioner was under suspension wouldbe qualified for pension and pensionary benefits only and the pay and allowances for the suspension period shall be limited to the subsistence allowance paid to him or ordered to be paid to him. 8. From the Order dated 30.08.2024, it is evident that after issuance of the Show Cause Notice and submission of the Reply to the Show Cause Notice, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the charges leveled against the petitioner. 8. From the Order dated 30.08.2024, it is evident that after issuance of the Show Cause Notice and submission of the Reply to the Show Cause Notice, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the charges leveled against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer submitted an Inquiry Report on 30.05.2024 holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved. On receipt of the Inquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority forwarded the Inquiry Report to the petitioner as the delinquent official to submit his views on the Inquiry Report. The petitioner submitted his views in respect of the Inquiry Report on 16.07.2024 through a Representation. The Disciplinary Authority had thereafter, upon consideration of the Inquiry Report and the views presented by the petitioner through his Representation, decided to inflict the penalty, mentioned above, in consultation with the Assam Public Service Commission. 9. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner did not prefer any appeal challenging the Order of penalty imposed on him by the Order dated 30.08.2024, meaning thereby, the Order of penalty has attained the status of finality. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that the Order of penalty dated 30.08.2024 made a mention about Preliminary Enquiry no. PE0172024A0001 which had been registered by the CBI, ACB, Guwahati. 10. I have heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. H.K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. P. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 & 5; and Mr. C. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General [A&E], Assam for the respondent no. 4. 11. Mr. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that as the petitioner has already retired from service on superannuation on 31.08.2024, the matters of pension and other retirement benefits to the petitioner are to be considered under the provisions of the Assam Services [Pension] Rules, 1969 and the other extant rules and regulations. He has submitted that the respondent authorities in the Public Works Department have not processed the case for pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner purportedly on the ground that the Office of the Executive Engineer, Golaghat NH Division where the petitioner served at one point of time, has not issued a ‘No Demand Certificate’. He has submitted that the respondent authorities in the Public Works Department have not processed the case for pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner purportedly on the ground that the Office of the Executive Engineer, Golaghat NH Division where the petitioner served at one point of time, has not issued a ‘No Demand Certificate’. He has further submitted that the matter of pensionary benefits has not been processed purportedly in view of the preliminary inquiry, Preliminary Enquiry no. PE0172024A0001 stated to have been conducted by the CBI. He has submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court while disposing of a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 9575/2023 had directed the CBI to conduct the preliminary enquiry. 11.1. Placing on record a Letter no. 4741/PE/01[A]/2024-GWH dated 27.09.2024 of the CBI, ACB, Guwahati [marked & kept as Document-‘A’] addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Assam on the subject, ‘Enquiry of CBI, ACB, Guwahati Case no. PE0172024A0001 – reg’, Mr. Das has submitted that the CBI after holding a preliminary inquiry did not find any criminality for probing and conducting any criminal investigation. He has submitted that in the Letter dated 27.09.2024 [supra], the CBI had only advised for taking necessary action against three named officials of the PWD; the contractor; and the sub-contractor; involved in the subject-work. The CBI in its preliminary inquiry had reported only about commission of procedural lapses on the part of the petitioner qua the subject-work. Mr. Das has further submitted that there is no criminal case against the petitioner against the alleged procedural lapses committed by the petitioner in respect of the subject-work, not to speak of submission of any criminal investigation resulting in a charge-sheet after completion of any criminal investigation by the CBI or any other investigating authority. Since as on date there is no charge-sheet against the petitioner after any criminal investigation, the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not processing the matters of pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner is arbitrary and unjustified in the context of the provisions contained in Rule 21 of the 1969 Rules. He has, thus, contended that the direction, as sought for, is clearly called for. 12. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam appearing for the respondent authorities in the Public Works Department has submitted that apart from the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. He has, thus, contended that the direction, as sought for, is clearly called for. 12. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam appearing for the respondent authorities in the Public Works Department has submitted that apart from the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 9575/2023 filed before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, there are two other litigations still pending before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. In the matter of non-issuance of No Demand Certificate, Mr. Nayak has referred to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 2 to submit that the Government in the Public Works Department [B&NH] sought for views from the Personnel Department; Administrative Reforms, Training, Pension and Public Grievances [ARTP&TG] Department; and the Judicial Department; in that connection. In response to the query, the Personnel Department advised to obtain the views of the ARTP&TG Department and the Judicial Department. The ARTP&TG Department had, in turn, advised to obtain views of the Judicial Department. The Judicial Department had observed that it could not come across any Circular/Office Memorandum/ provision laying down the norms and criteria regulating issuance of No Demand Certificate. The Judicial Department had observed that in the absence of any provision / guiding principle, the Public Works Department should ascertain if any such rule exists and thereafter, take necessary action accordingly. Mr. Nayak has further submitted that when the matter of pension is to be processed, a No Demand Certificate is a requisite for working out the pension and other retirement benefits to a retired employee. He has fairly submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court by its Judgment dated 16.02.2024 disposed of the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 9575/2023 with a directionto the CBI to conduct an enquiry into the issue of sub-contracting of the subject-work and also to take action in the matter in accordance with law and to submit a report to the Delhi High Court. The CBI after holding a preliminary inquiry, has submitted its Inquiry Report on 27.09.2024 with advise to proceed against the officials of the Public Works Department in respect of whom the CBI had reported about commission of procedural lapses while executing the subject-work and the petitioner was one of the officials named by the CBI in its Report submitted after Preliminary Enquiry no. PE0172024A0001. PE0172024A0001. It is submitted by him that a decision on the action suggested by the CBI in its Inquiry Report is to be taken and after such decision only, the matter of No Demand Certificate could be decided. If the decision is in favour of the petitioner then only the matter of pension, etc. can be further processed. 13. Mr. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General [A&E], Assam has submitted that the pension papers have not yet been forwarded by the Public Works Department, Government of Assam to the Office of the Accountant General [A&E], Assam till date, and as such, there is no question of working out and disbursing the pension and other retirement benefits to the petitioner. 14. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the materials brought on record by the parties through their pleadings. 15. On a plain reading of the contents of the Show Cause Notice dated 22.03.2024 and the charges leveled therein, it can be noticed that the charges were in connection with the subject-work undertaken during the petitioner’s tenure as Executive Engineer, PWD, Golaghat NH Division–cum– Authority Representative and his alleged acts of omissions or commissions in implementation of the subject-work. The disciplinary proceeding so initiated by the Show Cause Notice dated 22.03.2024 was taken to its conclusion by the Order dated 30.08.2024 whereby the penalty, as noted above, had been inflicted upon the petitioner. With the petitioner not assailing the Order of penalty imposed on him by way of any appeal or in any other form before any forum, the Order of penalty has clearly attained finality. 16. In the Self-Contained Note appended to the Letter dated 27.09.2024 [Annexure-‘A’] of the CBI, which was addressed to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, it was reported that the officials of the Public Works Department, Golaghat NH Division failed to seek approval of the authority, that is, the Chief Engineer, PWD, NH Works, Assam for executing the sub- contract in connection with the subject-work. It was reported that the petitioner had issued a performance certificate in violation of the norms. It was suggested to the effect that action as deemed fit could be initiated against the erring officials in the Public Works Department, NH Division, Golaghat. It was reported that the petitioner had issued a performance certificate in violation of the norms. It was suggested to the effect that action as deemed fit could be initiated against the erring officials in the Public Works Department, NH Division, Golaghat. A Status Report [marked & kept as Document-B] submitted by the CBI before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 30.09.2024 has also been placed before this Court. In the Status Report submitted by the CBI before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the CBI had reported the result of the preliminary inquiry to the effect that the inquiry did not reveal any criminality on part of any of the officials of the Public Works Department, NH Division, Golaghat and the contractor and the sub-contractor involved with the subject-work, worth CBI probe for conducting criminal investigation. The officials included the petitioner. Suggestions were made for taking necessary action against the erring officials and the contractor and the sub-contractor for procedural lapses in the Status Report submitted by the CBI before the Delhi High Court. There is no material placed before this Court to the effect that after the Letter dated 27.09.2024 of the CBI addressed to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam and submission of the Status Report by the CBI before the Delhi High Court on 30.09.2024, any criminal case has been registered against the petitioner initiating criminal investigation. On the other hand, on the same subject-matter, a disciplinary proceeding was earlier initiated and was also brought to its conclusion with imposition of penalty upon the petitioner. Therefore, there cannot be another disciplinary proceeding on the same set of allegations. 17. In so far as No Demand Certificate is concerned, it is found that when the Public Works Department sought views on it from the Personnel Department, ARTP&PG Department and the Judicial Department, the Personnel Department and the ARTP&PG Department had both suggested to the Public Works Department to obtain the views of the Judicial Department. The view of the Judicial Department is to the effect that it could not come across any Circular/Office Memorandum/ provision laying down the norms and criteria regulating issuance of No Demand Certificate and therefore, in the absence of any provision / guiding principle, the Public Works Department should ascertain if any such rule exists and thereafter, take necessary action accordingly. The view of the Judicial Department is to the effect that it could not come across any Circular/Office Memorandum/ provision laying down the norms and criteria regulating issuance of No Demand Certificate and therefore, in the absence of any provision / guiding principle, the Public Works Department should ascertain if any such rule exists and thereafter, take necessary action accordingly. On a query, the learned Additional Advocate General, Assam has fairly submitted that he has not been provided any information with regard to existence of any office Memorandum / Notification, etc. on ‘No Demand Certificate’. He has submitted that a ‘No Demand Certificate’ is a requisite for processing the matter of pension and for forwarding the papers to the Office of the Accountant General for sanctioning the pension and other retirement benefits. 18. From the correspondences annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent no. 2, it is noticed that the different officials in the Public Works Department have been exchanging correspondences in the matter of issuance or otherwise of ‘No Demand Certificate’ without taking any decision on it. The authorities who made the correspondences, had not referred to any Rule / Office Memorandum / Notification / Executive Instruction / Circular, etc. of the Government providing for No Demand Certificate. It is an admitted fact that after conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding on 30.08.2024, the petitioner was allowed to go on retirement on 31.08.2024 on reaching the age of superannuation. For rendering long service, the petitioner is entitled to receive monthly pension on and from 01.09.2024. The petitioner is also entitled to receive other retirement benefits subject to the provisions of the Assam Services [Pension] Rules as a member of the Assam Engineering [Public Works Department] Service. 19. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the provisions contained in Rule 21 of the Assam Services [Pension] Rules, 1969. For ready reference, Rule 21 is quoted hereinbelow :- 21. 19. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the provisions contained in Rule 21 of the Assam Services [Pension] Rules, 1969. For ready reference, Rule 21 is quoted hereinbelow :- 21. The Governor of Assam reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if, in a departmental or juridical proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement provided that: [a] such departmental proceeding, if instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the office, be deemed to be a proceeding under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the office had continued in service; Explanation – the continuation of the proceeding after the final retirement of the office shall be automatic under sub-rule [a] of Rule 21 and no fresh decision of the Governor and/or the Appointing authority nor any show-cause notice to the person concerned shall be necessary. The powers under Rule 21 shall be exerciseable not only in case of causing pecuniary loss to Government but also in all other cases. The powers under Rule 21 shall be exerciseable not only in case of causing pecuniary loss to Government but also in all other cases. [b] such departmental proceeding, if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment – [i] shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor of Assam; [ii] shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution; and [iii] shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Governor of Assam may direct and in accordance with procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the officer during his service; [c] no such judicial proceeding, if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than 4 years before such institution; and [d] the Assam Public Service Commission shall be consulted before final orders are passed. Explanation – For the purpose of this rule: [a] a departmental proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the officer or pensioner, or if the officer has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date. [b] a judicial proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted: [i] in the case of a criminal proceeding, on the date on which the complaint or report of police officer, on which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made. [ii] in the case of a civil proceeding, on the date of presentation of the plaint in the Court. 20. The meanings of ‘departmental proceeding’ and ‘judicial proceeding’ have been provided in Explanation to Rule 21. As per Explanation [a], a departmental proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the officer or pensioner, or if the officer has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date. Explanation [b] has provided the meaning of ‘judicial proceeding’. As per Explanation [a], a departmental proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the officer or pensioner, or if the officer has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date. Explanation [b] has provided the meaning of ‘judicial proceeding’. As per Explanation [b], a judicial proceeding shall be deemed to the instituted in the case of a criminal proceeding, on the date on which the complaint or report of Police Officer, on which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made, and in the case of a civil proceeding, on the date of presentation of the plaint in the Court. 21. It is true that apart from disciplinary proceeding, a Government servant can also face criminal proceeding. From Explanation [b][i], it is discernible that a criminal proceeding is deemed to be instituted on the date on which the complaint or the report of a Police Officer, on which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made. The provisions of taking cognizance of offences on a complaint or report of a Police Officer have been provided in Section 190 , Code of Criminal Procedure [CrPC] / Section 2 10 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [ BNSS ], 2023. As per the said provisions, a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction can take cognizance of any offenceupon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence or upon a Police Report of such facts. Section 2 [r], CrPC/ Section 2 [t], BNSS has provided for the definition of Police Report. ‘Police Report’ means a report forwarded by a Police Officer to a Magistrate under sub-section [2] of Section 173 CrPC / sub-section [3] of Section 193, BNSS . Section 2 [d] of the CrPC / Section 2 [h] of the BNSS has provided the definition of ‘complaint’. 22. In the absence of any complaint or report indicated in Explanation [b][i] of Rule 21 of the Assam Services [Pension] Rules, 1969, there is nothing on record to hold that any judicial proceeding has been instituted against the petitioner as on date. On the other hand, the disciplinary proceeding has already come to an end and it has obtained finality. In the absence of any complaint or report indicated in Explanation [b][i] of Rule 21 of the Assam Services [Pension] Rules, 1969, there is nothing on record to hold that any judicial proceeding has been instituted against the petitioner as on date. On the other hand, the disciplinary proceeding has already come to an end and it has obtained finality. As on date, there is nothing for the respondent authorities to exercise the right of withholding of pension or a part of it or for ordering recovery from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government in the absence of any pending disciplinary proceeding or judicial proceeding against the petitioner. 23. Though a contention has been advanced as regards No Demand Certificate, it is noticed that there is no provision in the Assam Services [Pension] Rules as regards No Demand Certificate. Even if any provision for No Demand Certificate has been made in any Office Memorandum/Notification, etc., the matter of No Demand Certificate is an intra-departmental matter which can be resolved by the departmental authorities in the Public Works Department. 24. It has been consistently held that though right to property is no longer a fundamental right, it is still a constitutional right as provided in Article 300A of the Constitution of India. In this connection, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made the following observations in State of Jharkhand vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava , (2013) 12 SCC 210 :- 16. The fact remains that there is an imprimatur to the legal principle that the right to receive pension is recognised as a right in “property”. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India reads as under: ‘300-A.Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law.—No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.’ Once we proceed on that premise, the answer to the question posed by us in the beginning of this judgment becomes too obvious. A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300-A of the Constitution. It follows that attempt of the appellant to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced. 17. A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300-A of the Constitution. It follows that attempt of the appellant to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced. 17. It hardly needs to be emphasised that the executive instructions are not having statutory character and, therefore, cannot be termed as ‘law’ within the meaning of the aforesaid Article 300-A. On the basis of such a circular, which is not having force of law, the appellant cannot withhold even a part of pension or gratuity. As we noticed above, so far as statutory Rules are concerned, there is no provision for withholding pension or gratuity in the given situation. Had there been any such provision in these Rules, the position would have been different. 25. It is an accepted position that pension, gratuity and any other retirement benefits are not bounties. An employee earns these benefits by dint of his long and continuous service. It is, thus, a hard-earned benefit which accrues to an employee. The right to receive pension has been recognized as a right to property by a Constitution Bench judgment in Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar , (1971) 2 SCC 330 , wherein it has been held that an employee could be deprived of the pensionary benefits only by an authority of law and that pension does not cease to be property on the mere denial or cancellation of it. 26. In light of the discussion made above and for the reasons assigned, this Court has reached a clear view that there is no authority on the part of the authorities in the respondent Public Works Department to withhold the pension and other retirement benefits like General Provident Fund [GPF], Leave Encashment, Group Insurance Scheme [GIS], Gratuity and other retirement benefit, if any, to the petitioner which the petitioner is eligible to receive on the strength of his service rendered till the date of his retirement under the Assam Service [Pension] Rules, 1969. 27. 27. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed by directing the respondent authorities in the Public Works Department, Government of Assam to take necessary steps to work out and disburse the regular pension and other retirement benefits like General Provident Fund [GPF], Leave Encashment, Group Insurance Scheme [GIS], Gratuity and other retirement benefit, if any, with the assistance of the Accountant General [A&E], Assam so that the petitioner receives the benefits within a period of two months from today. It is further observed that in the event the regular pension and other retirement benefits are not received by the petitioner within the period of 2 [two] months from today, the same would carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of this order till payment.