WP(C) 94/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned State counsel. The petitioner who has since retired from service on attaining the age of super annuation on 31.03.2010 has filed this writ petition for a direction to the resp ondents to release his regular pension. By the interim order dated 03.06.2011, t he respondents were directed to release the provisional pension. According to the petitioner, his divorced wife Smti Bibha Pathak filed a complai nt case before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur against him and o ne Shri Jayanta Kumar Nath and the said case was registered as Tezpur P.S. Case No. 37/2010. Thereafter the petitioner was arrested on 30.01.2010 and he was rel eased on bail on 10.02.2010. Consequent upon his arrest and detention, he was pl aced under suspension on 30.03.2010. However, he was reinstated in service on 31 .03.2010 and thereafter he retired from service on the same day. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the particular police case being not connected with any official duty, but being purely a private aff air, the respondents cannot withdraw his regular pension payable to him. On the other hand, Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned State counsel referring to the counter a ffidavit filed by the respondent No. 2, submits that until and unless the crimin al case comes to an end, the petitioner cannot claim regular pension. As per the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2, the petitioner was p laced under suspension because of his judicial detention. It has also been state d that the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner is being pur sued for early finalisation. In paragraph -11 of the counter affidavit, it has b een stated that the relevant file was sent to the Public Prosecutor, Tezpur for his comment and the same was returned on 01.02.2011. However, no final decision has been taken towards payment of regular monthly pension to the petitioner. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to dispassionately consider the case of the petitioner for release of his regul ar pension. While doing so they may keep in mind the particular police case whi ch does not pertain to any official works. As submitted by the learned counsel f or the petitioner, the complaint case filed by the divorced wife of the petition er is a false one and he does not involve in any moral turpitude. The respondents may carry out necessary formalities in this regard as expeditiou sly as possible preferably within three months. Till a decision is arrived at, t he provisional pension being paid to the petitioner shall be continued to be pai d. Writ petition is disposed of.