IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8448 of 2009 Awadhesh Kumar Sinha Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors 3/ 05/08/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also the Accountant General. The petitioner superannuated as a Clerk on 3.12.1994. He is aggrieved by the order dated 22.7.2002 by which his pension has been directed to be withheld to the extent of 10% till the disposal of the criminal case. He is further aggrieved by denial of salary for the period of suspension from 2.8.1988 to 19.1.1992. It is submitted that he was made an accused in a sessions case under Section-304B and other provisions of I.P.C. for the death of his daughter-in-law. The trial has concluded and the appeal is pending. No departmental proceeding was initiated against him in service for dereliction of any duties as a government servant. The departmental proceeding which was initiated against him after suspension related to the allegations against him vis-à-vis his daughter-in-law. Even that departmental proceeding has been dropped. There is no justification for the impugned order. Learned counsel for the State submits that a departmental proceeding was initiated in context of his 2 being made an accused for the death of his daughter-in- law, but that came to be dropped in pursuance of the orders of the Jharkhand High Court. Though no counter affidavit has been filed, learned counsel for the State has submitted that he has received written instructions but which are not with regard to the impugned order dated 22.7.2002 and expresses his handicap in assisting the Court further without fresh adjournment for instructions. The right to pension is a statutory right flowing from the Bihar Pension Rules. The fundamental of a pension is rendering of satisfactory service to the government. If there has been no allegations against the petitioner with regard to satisfactory service as a government servant, much less a departmental proceeding or criminal prosecution on that ground, the Court finds it difficult to appreciate the nature of the impugned order withholding his pension on grounds of the pendency of the criminal case under Section-304B, unconnected to the discharge of duties. The fact that the petitioner may have been convicted and his appeal is pending is hardly relevant. Pension is a statutory right which can be interfered with only to the extent permissible under the Bihar Pension Rules. Learned counsel for the State has raised the 3 issue of delay in preferring the writ application. It stands settled that the denial of pension is a continuing wrong and the question of delay simply does not arise. In the facts of the case and the nature of the claim, delay of eight years to the prejudice of none except the petitioner is hardly relevant. In Shiv Dass v. Union of India, (2007) 9 SCC 274 it has been held in relevant extract at para-10 as follows: “10. In the case of pension the cause of action actually continues from month to month…..” The impugned order dated 22.7.2002 is accordingly set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to all arrears of pension and salary for the period of suspension. Henceforth he is also entitled to his full pension in accordance with law. Let this order be complied with in its entirety within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)