IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5362 of 2010 RAJENDRA PRASAD SAH, S/O BHUBNESHWAR SAH, R/O VILL.- SAHA SADAN, SANDALPUR- BIBICHAK, P.S.- KASIMBAZAR, KOTWALI, DISTT.- MUNGER, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT RAJEEV NAGAR, P.S. RAJEEV NAGAR, P.O. KESHARINAGAR AND DISTT.- PATNA-800024. ---Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY. 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA-800015. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PERSONNEL & A.R. DEPARTMENT, PATNA- 800015. 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, PATNA-800015. 5. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA-800015. ---Respondents ----------- 4. 4.8.2010 Heard Mr Rajendra Prasad Sah, petitioner in person and the learned counsels appearing for the State and the Accountant General. The petitioner submits that all on a sudden his provisional pension has been stopped and declined to continue the same as per the order contained in Memo No.2036 dated 25th of February, 2008, vide Annexure 1 series. The petitioner submits that he was compulsorily retired as per Memo No.109 dated 19th of April, 2002, which has been assailed by him through a writ petition in this Court, vide CWJC No.1320 of 2003, which is pending for hearing. It is further submitted that the petitioner represented to the Department to the effect that his provisional pension may continue till the disposal of his aforesaid writ petition, which has been rejected by Annexure 1 series. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on 2 behalf of the State submits that the provisional pension is paid only till the final pension is not sanctioned. In this case, final pension and gratuity has been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. The Accountant General has also issued the necessary authorizations vide Memo No.4279 and 4282, both dated 22nd of December, 2006 as mentioned in Annexure 1. In this view of the matter, the request of the petitioner that the provisional pension should be continued was not accepted and the representation in this regard was rejected by the impugned order, as contained in Annexure 1. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is not inclined to accept the prayer of the petitioner that the provisional pension be continued till the disposal of CWJC No.1320 of 2003 challenging the order of his compulsory retirement. The final pension has been sanctioned to which the petitioner declined to receive on account of pendency of the aforesaid writ petition. The petitioner failed to show any rule or decision in support his prayer that the payment of provisional pension can be continued even after sanction of final pension. In this view of the discussions made above, I do not find any merit in the writ application. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)