IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7749 of 2005 BIR BHANJAN SINGH, SON OF LATE IJAT SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O. PIYANIA, POLICE STATION UDWANT NAGAR, DISTRICT BHOJPUR. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM- SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, RURAL DEVELOPMENT BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL DIVISION, ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 5.THE COMMISSIONER-CUM- SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 6. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 7. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEHARI, ROHTAS. 8. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, SONE CANAL ANCHAL ARRAH, BHOJPUR. ----------- 5. 31.07.2009 Heard the parties. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to payment of leave encashment and arrears of salary for the period from April 1979 to July 1998. The total outstanding dues of the petitioner has been taken into note by the respondent no. 4 in his letter addressed to the Superintendent Engineer contained in Memo No. 159 dated 24th of March 2004 whereby a sum of Rs. 2.64 lacs is payable vide Annexure-2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on perusal of the letter written by the respondent no. 7 to the Executive Engineer, Rural Development 2 Authority, Special Division, Khagaria it appears that a sum of Rs. 2.755 lacs were decided to be kept in abeyance. He further submits that the aforesaid amount has been kept in abeyance for the reasons that the petitioner while working at Jhajha in the capacity of Junior Engineer did not handover charge of the articles entrusted to him. It is however submitted that charge of those articles could not be given for the reasons that the articles either got damaged or rotten, as such, petitioner could not hand over charge on the aforesaid ground. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State denies the claim of the petitioner and submits that petitioner neither produced the articles nor satisfied the authority that the articles entrusted to him were destroyed or rotten as claimed by him. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is still ready to satisfy the department that the articles entrusted to him were either rotten or destroyed and as such no charge of those articles could be given as such his retiral dues cannot be withheld. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for expeditious disposal of his pending claims, petitioner proposes to file a fresh detailed representation before the 3 respondent no. 6, enclosing the copy of the relevant documents if any, in support of his claim alongwith certified copy of the present order, within a period of four weeks from today. In case such representation is filed, respondent no. 6 shall consider the grievances of the petitioner to be raised in the representation in accordance with law and dispose of the same by a reasoned order expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation so that the pending claims of the petitioner could be settled without further delay and the admitted dues may be paid. The writ application is disposed of with the above observations/directions. Jagdish/- (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J)