( 1 ) PETITIONER after attaining the age of superannuation retired from the services of the respondent-Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation limited ('corporation' for short) on 31-5-1999. Since the respondent-Corporation did not immediately settle the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner, he was making repeated representations and since those representations did not yield any results, petitioner was constrained to issue a legal notice dated 22-5-2000. Since he did not get any reply even to the said notice and since the respondent-Corporation had not settled the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner, he has approached this court inter alia seeking a direction to the respondent-Corporation to pay him the full pension and pensionary benefits with 18% interest from the date it became payable till the actual date of payment.

( 2 ) WITH the permission of the Court, petitioner has amended the prayer portion of the writ petition, by questioning the correctness or otherwise of the endorsement issued by the respondent-Corporation dated 12-11-2001. By the said endorsement, the respondent-Corporation has informed the petitioner that since judicial proceedings are pending against him, they are not in a position to settle the full pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioner.

( 3 ) THE respondent-Corporation has filed its detailed statement of objections and in that has brought to the notice of the Court, that the respondent-Corporation by an official memorandum dated 17-5-2000, have informed the petitioner that they have sanctioned 50% of the pension payable to him as provided under Regulation 172 of the Karnataka electricity Board Employees' Service Regulations ('regulations' for short ).

( 4 ) IN the statement of objections, the respondent Corporation has asserted that, since judicial proceedings are pending against the petitioner, the respondent-Corporation is justified in withholding part of the pension payable to the petitioner. In justification of their assertion, they have placed heavy reliance on the language employed in Regulation 171 of the Regulations.

( 5 ) THE questions that requires to be considered and decided by this Court are:i. Whether the respondent-Corporation is justified in not settling the full pension and pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner? ii. Whether the respondent-Corporation is justified in issuing the official memorandum dated 17-5-2000 in sanctioning only 50% of the pension and pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner? iii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to say relief?

( 6 ) TO answer the issues that I have raised for consideration, the provisions of Pension Regulations of the respondent-Corporation requires to be noticed. Regulations are framed by the respondent-Karnataka Electricity board in exercise of their powers under Section 79-C of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. These Regulations, apart from others, provide for matters relating to pay and allowances, leave, pension and travelling allowance of employees serving under the Board. Chapter IX of the Regulations provides for Regulations to regulate the service benefits admissible to the employees on their retirement or to their families in the event of their death while in service or after retirement. Omitting Regulations 168, 169 and 170 of the Regulations, which are not material for the purpose of the case, let me notice Regulations 171 and 172 of the Regulations for the purpose of deciding the issues raised by me. Regulation 171 of the Regulations read as under: "171. Withholding or withdrawal of pensions and recoveries therefrom. The Board further reserves to itself 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 the Board, if, in a departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct, o