IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3130 of 2005 RAM NARESH PANDEY, SON OF LATE RAM RATAN PANDEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – DARIYAPUR KAFEN, POLICE STATION, KURHANI AND DISTRICT - MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF CUM ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CUM SPECIAL SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 6. 15.05.2009 Heard the parties. The grievances of the petitioner are that though petitioner retired as Assistant Engineer on 30th of November 2003 but the retiral dues on account of leave encashment as also the commutation pension has remained to be finalized by the department. It is further submitted that the Department Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner while in service upon issuance of chargesheet dated 07.03.1998 for the occurrence with regard to the theft of BITUMEN and the petitioner was alleged to have involved in the alleged occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after initiation of the Departmental Proceeding and after submission of the reply to the charge sheet, the enquiry proceeding has remained pending till date without progress except of the change - 2 - of the Enquiry Officers from time to time. The respondent- State is taking undue advantage of the pendency of the Departmental Proceeding and denying the finalization of pension which consequently affects the commutation of pension which has been claimed by petitioner. Besides the above, the leave encashment has also not been paid on account of the said proceeding. In the above facts and circumstances, it is submitted that acts on the part of the respondent is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and also runs counter to the decision rendered by this court in similar circumstances as reported in the case S.Z.H. Jafri Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2005(3) PLJR page 166. Learned counsel for the State submits that the settlement of the payment of leave encashment as also finalization of pension has not been done on account of departmental proceeding against the petitioner which was initiated before his retirement. However, the petitioner is being paid 100 percent as provisional pension and gratuity. It is not undisputed that the aforesaid Departmental Proceeding which was initiated by issuance of the chargesheet on 07.03.1998 is still pending, and therefore, no order for payment of final pension has been taken by the Departmental Proceeding till date as also with regard to the payment of leave - 3 - encashment. This court in the aforesaid decision considered the issue raised in this case of the petitioner as well, the above contention that on account of pendency of the proceeding for a such long time cannot be justified in law for not passing the final/official order of pension which adversely affected the sanction of the commutation of pension as well. Learned counsel for the State is not in a position to refute the above submissions of the petitioner in light of the decision of this court as referred to the above. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the respondents should pass the final order with regard of payment of pension as also the commutation of pension as well as payment of the admissible dues on account of the leave encashment. Respondents should pass such orders expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months on receipt/production of the certified copy of the present order and also on submission of the representation giving all the relevant details for expeditious disposal of the claim. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. Jagdish (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)