The central legal point established in the judgment is that recovery from a pension and gratuity is subject to the limitations prescribed by the applicable pension rules, and recovery proceedings are barred beyond a specified period before retirement.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and its officials.

2. Petitioner is a retired Block Supply Officer, an employee of the State Government who appears to have served for several years under the respondent Corporation. Initially prayer in the writ petition was to direct the concerned authorities to release the pension of the petitioner due since May 1999 at the rate of Rs. 1608 per month as per pension payment order no. 286946 dated 22.2.1999. He had also claimed a relief against the respondent Corporation asking for a direction to dispose of petitioners repesentation regarding allegation of shortage of foodgrains while petitioner was in the service under the Corporation. Subsequently through an amendment petition petitioner has sought to challenge orders and letters contained in Annexures 6 and 7 Annexure-6 is a letter dated 19.12.1998 of Deputy Secretary, Government of Bihar in the Department of Food Supply and Commerce addressed to the Accountant General, Bihar on the subject of payment of pension and gratuity to the petitioner. A copy of the said letter was addressed to Managing Director of the Corporation that there was an alleged due of Rs. 5794.31 paise which petitioner had deposited in January 1994. The amount of interest on the said amount as may be recoverable from the petitioner was directed to be communicated to the Accountant General, Bihar so that after necessary deduction the payable pension/gratuity should be paid. Annexure-7 is a letter dated 7.2.2000 from an official of the Corporation addressed to the Accountant General, Bihar through which the recoverable amount of interest has been communicated to be Rs. 46012.08 paise. A request was made to the AG, Bihar to deduct the said amount from money payable to petitioner and remit the same to the Corporation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the decision of the Corporation to realise from the petitioner the aforesaid amount of Rs. 46012.08 paise on three grounds. Firstly, it has been submitted that the alleged shortage of foodgrains worth Rs. 5754.31 paise related to period prior to 1987. According to petitioner, the allegation was incorrect and at best he could be saddled only with a shortage worth Rs. 941.35 paise and hence, as soon as petitioner came to know of the allegation of shortage he submitted a representation before respondent no.2, the District Manager of the Corporation at Rohtas, Sasaram. No action was taken on such representation or on a reminder representation submitted in July 1991 (Annexure-l).Thus, according to petitioner, since no order was communicated to him on his representation relating to alleged shortage till he retired on 31.1.1997 hence it must be presumed that the Corporation accepted the petitioners contention that there was no shortage recoverable from the petitioner. Secondly, it was submitted that no proceeding of any kind was initiated against the petitioner ever and hence on charges or allegation of shortage during his tenure, no recovery can be made from his retiral benefits in absence of any proceeding permissible under the Bihar Pension Rules. Lastly, it was submitted that as per Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules any proceeding for making recovery from pension is permissible only if the allegations relate to an event within four years of retirement and in the present case since more than four years have lapsed since petitioners retirement hence no proceeding can be initiated for recovery from his pension and, therefore, the orders or directions authorising such recovery as contained in Annexures 6 and 7 are fit be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that petitioner has already deposited voluntarily the alleged shortage of Rs. 5754.31 paise in January 1994 as is apparent from Annexure-2, a receipt issued by the Corporation. Hence, there is no illegality in demanding