The main legal point established in the judgment is that executive instructions providing for payment of provisional pension during the pendency of proceedings supplement the pension rules and are not in conflict with them.

Nagendra Rai, J.

1. The appeal is barred by limitation.

2. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the averments made in the limitation petition, the delay in filing this appeal is condoned.

3. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18-4-2001 passed in CWJC No. 3934 of 2001 by a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the writ application filed by the writ petitioner respondent No. 1, herein, and directing the appellants to issue necessary sanction order for payment of remaining 10% of the amount of pension and gratuity and the full amount of G.P.F. to him and also to sanction commutation of pension within the period specified in the order failing which the concerned officer will not draw his salary till the compliance of the order passed by him and he shall be liable to pay cost of Rs. 1,000.00 to respondent No. 1 from his own pocket.

4. The facts necessary for disposal of the present application are that respondent No. 1 Ganga Bishun Mahto was appointed as an Engineer Assistant on 23-12-1971. Later on he was promoted to the next higher post of Assistant Engineer and then in the year 1994 he was promoted as an Executive Engineer. He superannuated from his service on 30-10-1999.

5. There was allegation of misconduct and a decision was taken to initiate a departmental proceeding and accordingly, he was put under suspension on 19-8-1998. Charges were framed on 31 -8-1998/6-11 -1998. The respondent No. 1 immediately moved this Court challenging his order of suspension in CWJC No. 7115 of 1998. The said writ application was disposed of on 2-9-1998 with a direction to the respondent in that writ application to conclude the departmental proceeding within a period of six months from the date of passing the order. However, the departmental proceeding was not concluded within the stipulated period. The respondent No. 1 again filed a writ application, being CWJC No. 4488 of 1999 which was disposed of on 2-8-1999. The stand taken by the State was that though the relevant papers were supplied to respondent No. 1, buthe was still insisting for supply of other papers, and because of that reason, the departmental proceeding could not be concluded. this Court having taken note of the fact that he was to superannuate in the month of October, 1999, directed the authority concerned to dispose of the departmental proceeding by the end of September, 1990. However, the departmental proceeding could not come to an end. In the meantime, the respondent No. 1 superannuated and the said proceeding after his superannuation is continuing under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), which provides for continuance of the proceeding already pending for the purpose of withholding pension etc.

6. After retirement the respondent No. 1 was paid his all retrial dues except 10% of the amount of pension and gratuity and entire amount of G.P.F. on the plea of pendency of the proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Rules. Thereafter, respondent No. 12 filed the aforesaid writ application which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge as stated above.

7. Before adverting to the submissions advanced at the bar it will be apt to refer to the statutory provisions which have bearing on the question.

8. It is admitted position that the provision of Rules applies in the case of respondent No. 1 Rule 139 of the Rules provides that the full pension is not to be granted as a matter of course, or unless the service rendered has been really approved. In case the service has not been found thoroughly satisfactory, the competent authority should make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper. The State Government has also been vested with the power of revision with regard to an order of pension passed by the subordinate authority in two situations, namely, when the service of the employee was not thoroughly satisfactory or a grave misconduct has been proved on the part of the