IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13891 of 2002 RAM CHANDRA ROY, Son of Late Ram Sudist Roy, resident of Village- Dasauth Tole Bhanpur, police Station- Hathauri, District- Samastipur. ----------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK SAMITI, BUDH MARG, PATNA THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR. 2. THE ADMINISTRATOR, THE BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK, BUDH MARG, PATNA ----------- Respondents ----------- 9 16.10.2008 The petitioner has come to this Court for payment of retiral dues pending against the Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Bank’). The petitioner has retired as a Loan Officer on 30.4.2000 and has filed this writ application on 11.12.2002 claiming his retiral dues. During the pendency of the writ application the petitioner died and his wife was substituted as an heir. A counter affidavit has been filed in which it has been stated that the retiral dues under the head of C.P.F. amounting to Rs. 2,58,919/- along with upto date interest of 43,608/- has been paid to the petitioner on 6.10.2003. Similarly it has been stated that gratuity and leave encashment of Rs. 57,420/- and Rs. 76,096/- respectively have been paid after making deduction and adjustment on the basis of a report of the - 2 - vigilance cell amounting to Rs. 19,507/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deduction has been made on the basis of an alleged Bank loan which was allegedly granted by the petitioner. It has been stated on behalf of the Bank that the petitioner can withdraw the entire amount after filing an indemnity bond. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s husband retired in 2000 and thereafter died in 2005 and the Bank cannot without proper proceeding deduct the amount of Rs. 19,000/- odd and insist that the amount can only be withdrawn after filing of an indemnity bond. I am inclined to agree with the submission made on behalf of the heir of the original petitioner as without a proper proceeding, which envisages that the person concerned should be permitted to explain his position, no deduction can be made by the Bank of the retiral dues of the original petitioner as it would amount to a punishment. As such I find that the stand of the Bank that the petitioner can only withdraw the gratuity and - 3 - leave encashment after filing of an indemnity bond is unjustified and I direct that the respondent no. 2 should pay the entire dues of the petitioner within a period of three months on receipt of the order of this Court. The writ application is accordingly allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)