IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3737 of 2008 SAHDEO MAHTO Son of Late Shivyogi Mahto, Resident of Village Bela Parsa, P.O. Bela Parsa, P.S. Harlakhi District Madhubani (Bihar.) Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through its Chief Secretary 2.Commissioner Cum Secretary, Water Resources Department, State of Bihar, Patna. 3.Accountant General, State of Bihar, Patna. 4.Executive Engineer, Irrigation Mechanical Division No.1, Birpur, District Saharsa. 5.The District Treasury Officer, Distt. Madhubani, Bihar. 6.The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 7.The Accountant General, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 8.Executive Engineer, Konar Canal Division Bagodar, District-Giridih, Jharkhand. ----------- 2 4/5/2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State of Bihar as also counsel for the State of Jharkhand. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or writs, direction or directions commanding upon the respondents authorities to make the payment of all the pensionary benefits including balance of pension, Gratuity, Provident fund, and leave encashment as only a sum of Rs.49,120/- (Fifty nine thousand one hundred twenty) has been paid out of Rs.1,85,878/- against the pension amount and other benefits have not been paid at all whereas petitioner has retired on 31.3.1989 and pension has been started in the year of 2005.” There is no dispute that services of the petitioner while holding the post of Assistant Line Man was pensionable and his date of actual retirement ought to have been 31.3.1989, but he had over stayed in service up to 31.5.1995. The petitioner himself gives up the claim for extra service rendered by him and had made offer for recovery of the amount, if any, paid to him for the period 2 between 1.4.1989 to 31.5.1991. Grievance of the petitioner is that despite such clear offer given by him in fact recovery was made partly by the concerned Executive Engineer, Konar Canal Division, Bagodar from the amount of provisional pension and his retirement benefit till date has not been finalized. In the opinion of this Court, this would show the in competence and negligence on the part of the State of Bihar as also the State of Jharkhand who have kept the grievance relating to payment of retirement benefit of the petitioner pending for the last 20 years. Be that as it may, this Court would direct the respondent No.2, the head of the department, to ensure that whatever retirement benefit to which the petitioner is entitled, such payment in full must be made to the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The respondent no.2 will also under obligation to give detailed calculation chart, whereafter, if the petitioner finds any amount further payable to him he would file a representation regarding that particular payment and respondent no.2 would again apply himself to the said grievance of the petitioner and would decide the same within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation of the petitioner. In the facts of this case when the petitioner had over stayed for a period of two years in service by making himself 3 misrepresentation, he would not be entitled for payment of interest on the dues retirement benefit but if even now he would not be paid the admitted amount by the Respondents in the aforesaid period in the time prescribed he would become entitled for payment of interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of entitlement to the date of payment. With the aforementioned observation and direction this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)