IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5835 of 2009 DR.HIRA LAL, S/0 Late Shree Jagdish Lal, aged about 61 years, R/0- P.O. Kochas, P.S.-Kochas, District-Rohtas. Presently residing at Mohalla- Power House Chutia, Near Kali School, Ranch, Jharkhand. ……………….. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through it Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Director, Animal Husbandry, Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna-Respondents. 4. The Account General, Patna. 5. The District Provident Fund Officer, Bhojpur at Ara ……………. Respondents -------- 2 11.05.2009 Heard Mr. Deo Govind Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. In this writ application, the prayer of the petitioner reads as follows:- “For issuance of an appropriate Writ/Order/Direction for payment of salary for suspension period commencing from 31 May 2002 when petitioner was suspends (Annexure-1) to 31.03.2008 the date of retirement after completion of 60 years of age. In absence of any order with holding the same by the State Government with the interest @ 15% from 01.04.2009 till actual payment, treating the said period as on duty.” There is no difficulty in appreciating 2 the grievance of the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 31st of May, 2002 as contained in Annexure-1 to this writ application such order of suspension in fact was passed on account of the petitioner being made an accused in a criminal case being RC 48(A)/96. The State Government had already granted sanction for prosecution against the petitioner vide letter No. 2844 of 22.8.2001 and the trial of that criminal case in which the Government had already granted sanction for prosecution is still pending. If that be so, merely because the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation that will not make him entitled for payment of salary for the period of suspension till the petitioner is acquitted and exonerated from the charges framed against him in the pending criminal trial. The payment of salary/remaining amount to which the petitioner would be entitled, is squarely dependent on the outcome of the criminal case. If the petitioner is held to be guilty and punished, the Government will have a right not only to withhold the amount which was paid to him but 3 also to reduce/withdraw the pension to zero, if there be the charges of such serious nature, depending on the amount of defalcation/ misappropriation. At this stage, the respondent authorities of the Government therefore cannot be directed to make payment of the balance amount beyond subsistence allowance already paid to the petitioner. There is no dispute that the petitioner has been paid his subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% on the date of his retirement i.e. 1.4.2008 as is clearly admitted by him in paragraph 5 of the writ application. Even after retirement, the petitioner is entitled to get 90% by way of provisional pension sans gratuity and other retirement benefits. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that he does not have means to sustain himself till the conclusion of pending trial. In that view of the matter, this Court would not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)