IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3501 of 2009 SURENDRA DEWEDI, son of Late Bahoran Dubey, Tap Inspector, H.P. Division, Bihar State Housing Board, Resident of L.I.G. Flat No.3/145, Sector 6, Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Patna-20 ---Petitioner Versus 1. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, 6 Mangles Road, Patna-1. 2. Secretary, Bihar State Housing Board, 6 Mangles Road, Patna-1. 3. Chief Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, 6 Mangles Road, Patna-1. 4. Executive Engineer, P.H.D. Division, Bihar State Housing Board, Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Bhoot Nath Road, Patna, P.S. Agam Kuan, District Patna. ---Respondents ----- 11. 19.3.2010 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-Board. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite his superannuation on 31st of July, 2007 from the post of Tap Inspector, his full retiral dues have not been settled as yet despite representation. It is submitted that some of the retiral dues have been paid to the petitioner. However, the respondent-Board is still required to settle the claim for gratuity, which has not been paid in its entirety. The petitioner has not been paid the leave encashment for 49 days out of 300 days. The G.P.F. has been paid calculating the amount outstanding till 2006 whereas the petitioner has retired on 31st of July, 2007. As such, the G.P.F. for the said period of seven months is required to be settled and paid. There is another claim for unpaid salary for the period 9.7.1998 to 27.1.1999 (202 days). The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on - 2 - perusal of paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit as also paragraph 10 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it appears that the service of the petitioner was regularised vide Board’s letter dated 14.9.1977 (Annexure K), but the consequential benefits on account of such regularization till the date of retirement were not given to him. Mrs. Nilu Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board submits that although the petitioner has been paid the admissible retiral dues, but the claims, as referred to above by the petitioner, shall be considered and if, upon consideration, it is found payable, the same would be paid. She further submits that the petitioner retired as a Tap Operator whereas this fact has seriously been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that it is a fact that the petitioner retired as a Tap Inspector and not as Tap Operator. In the above circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for expeditious disposal of the aforesaid grievances as highlighted in this writ application, the petitioner proposes to file a fresh representation before the Chairman-Cum- Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna (respondent no.1). In case such a representation is filed stating the details of all his claims distinctly as also enclosing the copy of the relevant documents, if any, in support of such claims along with the certified copy of the present order within a period of six weeks, the grievances of the petitioner as raised in his representation shall be considered in - 3 - accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation. Upon consideration, in case the claims raised by the petitioner are found admissible, the admitted dues shall be paid to the petitioner with statutory interest, if any. If any of the claims or any part of the claims is found not admissible, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner by registered post with the reasons thereof. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)