IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9493 of 2003 Tej Narain Mishra, S/o- late Umesh Mishra, Resident of village- Areregah, Police Station- Arer Hat, District- Madhubani. …………. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jharkhand, Ranchi. 4. The Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, South Chhotanagpur, Division, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Simdega, District- Gumla, Jharkhand. 6. The District Co-operative Officer, Gumla, Jharkhand. 7. The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, Jharkhand. 8. The District Provident Fund Officer, Gumla, Jharkhand. 9. The Managing Director, Gumla-Simdega Central Co-operative Bank, Simdega. 10. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. ………….. Respondents -------------- 07 22.10.2008 The petitioner’s contention is that he retired working under the Co-operative Department of the State of Bihar in the year 1997 that is prior to bifurcation of State. About two years after his retirement there were allegations of defalcation and as such a criminal proceeding was instituted and a departmental proceeding with reference to Section 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules was recommended. In the departmental proceeding the petitioner was totally exonerated and as such directions were issued to pay the entire retiral dues. This has been stopped merely on the ground that a criminal case is still pending. Petitioner questions the propriety and legality of this stand. State of Bihar takes stand that it has directed the State of Jharkhand to make payment as the petitioner retired from Simdega in the State of Jharkhand. Learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand 2 protests that as the petitioner had retired prior to bifurcation the liability would be that of State of Bihar, according to Section 53, Schedule 8, Sub-clause 2 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000. In my view, once the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental proceedings which itself were initiated long after retirement. Payment of retiral dues cannot be withheld, merely, because there is a criminal case pending. The petitioner is, thus, entitled to his complete retiral dues and as he retired prior to bifurcation of the State the same has to be paid by the State of Bihar. There may be an agreement between the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand but that is an inter party agreement. If State of Jharkhand does not recognize or abide by this, this Court cannot compel it for. Section 53 read with Schedule 8, Sub-clause 2 of the Bihar Reorganization Act makes only State of Bihar liable. Thus, I am left with no option but to direct the State of Bihar to ensure that all the retiral dues of the petitioner are paid within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this order before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Government of Bihar, Patna and State of Bihar may however infers its rights under the so called agreement as available to him. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed. Trivedi/ ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)