Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsels for the State of Bihar and the Accountant General, Bihar.

2. The original petitioner Ram Lakhan Prasad had filed the writ petition for a direction to the respondents to pay the full pension, gratuity and leave encashment as also full salary for the suspension period from 25.4.2002 to 31.1.2003.

3. The brief facts of the case relevant in the present matter are that the original petitioner while in the service of the State Government as a Clerk in a High School was made accused in Rahui P.S. case No.65 of 2002 for the offences under Section 302 IPC and other Sections and was arrested on 23.4.2002. While still in jail he superannuated from service on 31.1.2003. By the judgment and order dated 12.7.2004 he was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life, against which the original petitioner had filed a Criminal Appeal in the High Court which is still pending and the original petitioner was released on bail by order dated 20.5.2009 of this Court. On 24.7.2009 the original petitioner filed his representation before the authorities seeking information of the documents to be submitted by him for his post retiral benefits and other consequential benefits and submitted thereafter the same on 3.10.2009. By the impugned order dated 20.3.2010 (Annexure-8) passed by the District Education Officer referring to the fact of petitioner’s conviction and sentence and the opinion of the Assistant Government Advocate, Biharsharif that in terms of Rule 43(a) of the Bihar Pension Rules future good conduct is a condition of every grant of pension and the Government has a right to withhold and withdraw the pension in part or in full and therefore on account of the conviction of the original petitioner under Section 302 IPC until he is acquitted by the High Court his pension claim is denied. By another order dated 4.9.2010 (Annexure-10) of the District Education Officer, Nalanda the same fact and the same order was reiterated. Finally an office order dated 19.7.2012 of the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Nalanda was passed referring to the facts of the petitioner’s case and also stating that after the petitioner was sent to jail on 25.4.2002 he was placed under suspension and brought under departmental proceedings and the suspension was revoked on 31.1.2003 on his superannuation from service. Referring to the order dated 22.2.2010 with the opinion of the Assistant Government Advocate it was directed that he shall not be paid any pension and gratuity and for the period of suspension he will not be given anything more apart from the subsistence allowance and the departmental proceedings under Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules was closed.

4. During the pendency of the writ petition the original petitioner died on 12.12.2011 and his heirs and legal representatives have been brought on the record. The order dated 19.7.2012 has admittedly been passed after the death of the original petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that so far as the orders dated 20.3.2010 and 4.9.2010 are concerned, the same have been passed under Rule 43(a) of the Bihar Pension Rules which is not at all applicable to the case of the original petitioner. It is urged by learned counsel that such provision can only apply to a case of misconduct or offence that may be committed after the superannuation of the employee, whereas in the present matter the conviction is for an offence which was alleged to have been committed while the petitioner was still in service. With respect to the order dated 19.7.2012 it is submitted by learned counsel that the same has been passed after the death of the original petitioner and is thus non est and incompetent and cannot be given effect to.

6. The key submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, however, is that the original petitioner after his conviction under Section 302 IPC has been subjected to th