JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to immediately and forthwith release the pension and other retiral benefits in favour of the present petitioner, which has been withheld by the respondent authorities in spite of the fact that there is no departmental proceeding pending against this petitioner.

3. Brief facts of the instant case as narrated in the instant writ application is that the petitioner was appointed as Stenographer in the National Higher Road Division, Dhanbad where he gave his joining on 01.05.1982 and finally retired from service on 31.01.2015. Vide letter dated 16.8.2014 the respondent authority directed the petitioner to submit the documents relating to his service for speedy disposal of his retiral benefits and finally vide letter dated 13.11.2014 name of the petitioner was recommended for release of final payment.

All of a sudden, a complaint was made against this petitioner with respect to his Caste and pursuant thereto; a show-cause was issued to him on 28.01.2015 to which he duly replied on 29.01.2015 itself before his retirement.

4. Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute relates to the Caste certificate of the petitioner and therefore, the Circle Officer is not the competent authority to look into the issue of Caste and decide the case of the petitioner as the competent authority to look into and decide the issue as to whether the petitioner belongs to a particular caste or not and as to whether the caste certificate issued to the petitioner is correct or not can only be decided in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commr., Tribal Development & Ors. reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241.

Learned counsel further submits that no departmental proceeding is pending against him; as such withholding of retiral benefits is illegal and the respondents may be directed to release the entire benefits forthwith.

5. Mr. Navneet Toppo, learned counsel for the respondent State submits that since the petitioner procured the job on the basis of a schedule-caste certificate and the post was also reserved for scheduled caste and upon a complaint made in this regard; the matter was enquired into and it was found that the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Caste category and thereafter, Superintending Engineer, National Highways Circle, Dhanbad, instructed the Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, Dhanbad (Respondent No.3) vide letter No. 283(WE) dated 05.05.2015 to lodge F.I.R. and since the said criminal case is pending; the respondents are justified in withholding the pensionary benefits. He further submits that several notices were issued to the petitioner to the extent that why not a proper proceeding under Bihar Pension Rules should be initiated after his retirement. However, the petitioner did not bother to reply the same.

However, learned counsel for the respondent State is not able to demonstrate by any document that any departmental proceeding has been initiated against this petitioner; as such, the fact remains that till date no departmental proceeding has been initiated and/or pending against this petitioner.

6. In reply to the aforesaid contentions of the respondent State, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now neither any proceeding under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules can be initiated for the reason that the cause of action is prior to four years; nor any proceeding under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules can be initiated in the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the light of judgment passed in STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS versus MOHD. IDRIS ANSARI reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 56.

He further contented that in the case of STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. versus JITENDRA KUMAR SERIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210, the Ho