JUDGMENT :

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Kumar Kaushik, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Satyabir Bharti, the learned Advocate for the respondent/High Court of Judicature at Patna. The State is represented by Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, the learned Advocate. Mr. Rajnandan Prasad, the learned Advocate represents, the Accountant General.

2. The issue raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is whether he is entitled to notional addition of increments in his pay during the period of his suspension, which was not held to be under duty and the petitioner was only admitted to subsistence allowance when eventually he was compulsorily retired.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that even if only subsistence allowance was payable to the petitioner during the period of his suspension, for counting of pension, the increments accrued to him during the period of suspension be added notionally or else there would be a cumulative effect of such non addition of increments which again would form a major punishment and in that case, the petitioner would suffer a double whammy.

4. To state the facts for appreciating the contention of the petitioner, he was subjected to a departmental proceeding in which, he was given a punishment of compulsory retirement. The period of his suspension was held to be not on duty and, therefore, only subsistence allowance was made admissible to him.

5. The challenge to the order of punishment before the High Court and the Supreme Court by the petitioner, failed.

6. The pension of the petitioner was fixed in the year 2014 on the basis of his last drawn pay at Rs. 43,690/-. The pensionable amount was, therefore, calculated at Rs. 15,292/-. The period of suspension was not taken into account by the office of the Accountant General while fixing the afore-noted quantum of pension of the petitioner.

7. About seven months thereafter, the pension amount of the petitioner was further hiked at Rs. 21,845/- as it constituted 50% of the last salary drawn by the petitioner by taking into account the period of service even during the suspension. This reduction was on the basis of a resolution of the Finance Department of the Govt. dated 11.02.2019, which has been brought on record by way of Annexure-9B. This reduction was again by virtue of a resolution modifying the earlier resolution dated referred to above dated 11.02.2019.

8. This reduction in pension was challenged by the petitioner before this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 9002/2021, wherein, on consideration of materials on record, a Division Bench of this Court was of the view that the ends of justice would be met by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna for redressal of his grievances within a stipulated period of time. The reduction of the pension was primarily challenged on the interpretation of the clarificatory circular as also that before reduction, no notice was given to the petitioner.

9. The order of reduction of pension has not yet been revised and the last of the P.P.O. received by the petitioner contains a stipulation that any excess payment given to him, shall be recovered without stating as to by which mode; either by adjustment in the pensionable amount or asking the petitioner to pay such amount.

10. Be that as it may, in the present writ petition, it has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that since he has been inflicted with a punishment of compulsory retirement and during the period of suspension, only subsistence allowance has been made available to him, he cannot be denied of the increments in his pay, which may have accrued during the period of suspension, more so when the period spent during suspension was taken into account for calculating the pensionable amount due to the petitioner.

11. Mr. Kaushik, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the continuity of his service remains. During the period of suspension, he was only de