NAVIN SINHA, J.

1. The petitioner superannuated on 31.10.1990, from the Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, substantively holding the post of Assistant Engineer while he held additional charge as Executive Engineer. He is aggrieved by the denial of certain service retirement benefits.

2. The petitioner, in his service tenure was subjected to more than one departmental proceeding on certain charges and punisnments were imposed on him.

3. The petitioner came to this after his superannuation originally in 1993 in CWJC No. 11352 of 1993 aggrieved by the non payment of his retirement benefits. During the pendency of the writ petition by an order dated 4.3.1994 his G.P.F., Group Insurance and 90% of provisional pension were ordered to be released. While the writ petition was still pending, on 9.3.1994 fresh orders were issued reducing his pension to 70% in exercise of powers under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules. The petitioner had preferred two separate departmental appeals against the orders of punishment and which were pending. This Court on 25.3.1996 disposed the writ petition only with directions to decide the pending appeals expeditiously. By a common order dated 26.8.1996 both the departmental appeals were rejected and the orders of punishment upheld. The petitioner then came to this Court in CWJC No. 9070 of 1997 questioning the common appellate orders rejecting his two appeals.

4. Simultaneously, the petitioner preferred CWJC No. 4450 of 1997 for release of his retirement and other benefits. On 22.4.1998 CWJC No. 4450 of 1997 was disposed granting liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the Accountant General and the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, who were then required to pass a combined reasoned order disposing the representation with regard to retirement and other service dues. The dues payable were directed to be released immediately thereafter. The petitioner filed his representation on 6.5.1998, which was disposed by a common order dated 30.7.1998. While certain reliefs were granted, the denial of others have compelled him to approach this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the order of reduction of pension to 70% as bad for non-compliance of the statutory provisions of Rule 139 (C) of the Pension Rules to submit that no opportunity to show cause had been furnished prior to the issuance of the order. Reliance for the snme has been placed on a Bench decision of this Court reported in 2005(2) PLJR 634 (Sharda Prasad Sinha V/s. The B.S.E.B. & ors) in support of the same. Learned counsel next assailed the order dated 3.5.1994, that nothing shall be payable for the period of suspension except subsistence allowance: but that the same shall be counted for the purposes of pensionary service, as bad for non compliance of a notice under Rule 97(3) of the Bihar Service Code. It was next submitted that the financial benefit of the increment actually denied to him as a punishment did not take away his eligibility to the increment as part of his service conditions. His last pay drawn, for a purposes of fixation of pension was required to be determined after addition of such increments to which he was eligible notionally. The petitioner discharged the additional duties of Executive Engineer from March 1980 till his superannuation while holding the substantive rank of Assistant Engineer. Therefore, he was entitled to special allowance under Rule 103 of the Bihar Service Code for the said period. The claim was also made for leave encashment salary for 54 days wrongly denied to him on account of not counting the period of suspension for the purpose of duty. Interest was claimed on gratuity paid to him after 7 years along with a claim for refixation of gratuity after redetermination of the last pay drawn in the manner as aforesaid. Lastly, a claim was made for interest on all arrears of retirement and other services