IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1817 of 2008 DEO NANDAN PRASAD . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2/ 27/01/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. It is contended that the petitioner retired from service as a Junior Engineer on 31.1.2003. While he was in service, his salary was withheld from November, 1999 to January, 2003. He was asked to adjust the account and submit reports whereafter salary would be released. It is his case that this notice dated 20.5.2000 was a sequel to an earlier notice dated 28.4.2000, already replied by him on 11.5.2000. Nonetheless, he submitted his fresh reply on 14.10.2000 again. It is his further case that no proceedings were initiated against him while he was in service. He was again given a show cause notice on 12.8.2002 which too he replied on 31.10.2002. After his superannuation the respondents have passed an order under Rule- 139 of the Bihar Service Code withholding 50% of 2 his pension which he has questioned in C.W.J.C. No.14854/07. Even if that writ petition were to be dismissed, that would have the effect of visiting him with loss of 50% of pension. There are no recovery proceedings against him. Learned counsel for the State submits that in absence of instructions and a counter affidavit, from the pleadings on record it appears that the petitioner has not even represented before the authorities for his salary dues. If recovery proceedings are pending, the matter may be different. The writ application is disposed with the following observations:- (A) If recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner, the claim of the petitioner in this writ application shall necessarily depend on the outcome of the recovery proceedings. (B) If during his service tenure no recovery proceedings or disciplinary proceedings were started against 3 the petitioner and he had duly submitted his replies to the show cause notices issued to him, as was submitted on his behalf, the authority is then required to decide his claim for salary presently made. (C) While deciding such claim, the authority is also required, if he is satisfied from the records that the petitioner had indeed filed his replies to the show cause notices given to him, to consider the grant of interest on the arrears of salary found to be payable. This Court considers the observation with regard to the grant of interest necessary, as if there was no legal justification to withhold the salary, and the respondents chose to sleep over the suspicions that they may had against the petitioner to which he duly replied, the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer. Let such consideration be done and a reasoned and speaking order be passed, the 4 legitimate dues, if any, be paid, all to be complied with within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him. Let the writ petition be treated as a representation for the purpose. The application stands disposed. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)