Harish Kumar, J.—This Court has heard Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Rajan, learned Advocate representing the State.

2. The petitioner, who superannuated on 30.11.2015 from the post of Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes of the State Government, has preferred the present writ petition seeking quashing of the notification contained in Memo No. 6061 dated 28.11.2018 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government in the Department of Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna by which 25% of the 90% of the provisional pension for the period of five years has been deducted in terms of Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, as the services of the petitioner have not been found to be satisfactory. The petitioner also sought a direction upon the respondent authorities to ensure the payment of gratuity and leave encashment along with other admissible benefits, upon his being superannuated on 30.11.2015, as there was neither any departmental proceeding/judicial proceeding pending against him nor there is any other valid reason for not making payment of the said retirement benefit. The petitioner further seeks a direction upon the concerned respondents to ensure payment of 100% current pension and also arrears of pension that had been denied to the petitioner for the period 30.11.2015 till date.

3. The facts, which have material bearing over the issue, in short are that the petitioner was initially appointed against the post of Commercial Taxes Officer in the services of the State Government way back in the year 1981. Having worked in different capacity at different places under the Commercial Taxes Department, the petitioner on being found eligible was granted promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner vide notification dated 09.09.1997. Subsequently, the petitioner was granted promotion for the post of Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes by notification dated 05.01.2006 issued by the Finance (Commercial Taxes) Department of the State Government in the prescribed pay scale. While the petitioner was continuing on the post of Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, on the basis of the recommendation made by the Departmental Promotion Committee, the petitioner along with other similarly situated persons was granted promotion against the post of Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes vide notification as contained in Memo No.880 dated 25.02.2010.

4. In the meantime, while the petitioner was continuing in the capacity of Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and when he became entitled for promotion to the post of Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes on account of fulfillment of eligibility and his position in the seniority list, his case along with others were considered for promotion and an information has been sought for by the Vigilance Department. In response thereto the Vigilance Department submitted information with respect to altogether 10 persons against whom the Vigilance cases were pending. The name of the petitioner did not find place in the list of such officers, against whom cases were pending. Nonetheless, the petitioner was denied the said promotion. In the meantime, the petitioner attained the age of 60 years on 30.11.2015 and thus superannuated from the post of Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes.

5. Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, learned Advocate for the petitioner adverting to the aforesaid facts urged before this Court that in the manner as aforesaid, it is manifest that on the basis of the satisfactory services and on account of fulfillment of all the eligibility criteria the petitioner was granted promotion against the higher post from time to time, on the basis of clearance received from the Vigilance Department of the State Government. The aforesaid facts clearly demonstrate that there was nothing adverse pending against the petitioner and in fact on the basis of such clearance alone the petitioner was granted promotion against the said higher post.

6. Referring to the copies of the lett