IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5081 of 2005 DR.OM PRAKASH CHOUDHARY, son of late Kishun Prasad Choudhary, Resident of Ram Nagar, P.S. Katihar Sadar, Beside D.S. College, District- Katihar. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Accountant General, (A & E )-II, Bihar, Patna, 3. Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Health Medical Education and Family Welfare, Bihar, Patna. 4. Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Finance, Bihar, Patna. 5. District Magistrate, Katihar. 6. Chief Executive Officer-cum-Deputy Development Commissioner, District Board, Katihar. 7. Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Katihar. 8. Medical Officer-in-charge, Barari, Katihar. 9. District Provident Fund Officer, Katihar. 10. Treasury Officer, Katihar Treasury, Katihar. ----------- 03 22.01.2010 Heard Mr. Rajan Ghoshrave learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashutosh Singh learned A.C. to G.P.8 for the State, learned counsel for the District Board and learned counsel for the Accountant General. The petitioner has moved this Court for payment of his post retiral and other dues, having superannuated with effect from 31.12.2001 from the post of Medical Officer. During the pendency of the proceedings most of the admissible retiral dues of the petitioner 2 was paid to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are still some pending claims admissible to him. He raises a grievance as regarding the quantum of pension fixed by the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna which according to the petitioner was not correct and was not on the basis of last salary drawn. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Accountant General submits that the service tenure of the petitioner was less than 33 years continuous service and which does not qualify him to draw full pension. Hence the pension has been correctly fixed on the basis of service tenure rendered by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submits that the service rendered under the District Board should also be counted towards qualifying service. It is seen that even if the said period is taken into account it does not fulfil the qualifying period of 33 years to enable the petitioner to draw full pension. In that view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner for full pension cannot be accepted. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of 3 the petitioner submits that a part of the gratuity amount has been withheld by the respondents for alleged non production of the no dues certificate and which has been already issued by the department and is placed at Annexure-5 of the writ petition. In that view of the matter, there should not be any difficulty on the part of the respondents in releasing the withheld amount of gratuity in case no other advance(s) is found pending against the petitioner as certified by the Civil Surgeon–Cum-Chief Medical Officer, Katihar vide memo No. 2452 dated 9.11.2004 (Annexure-5) within three months from date of receipt/production of copy of this order. In so far as the claim of the petitioner regarding non encashment of vouchers submitted by him at the time of retirement is concerned it is directed that if the claim is found to be correct and any such voucher still remains to be paid then it should also be cleared within the said period of three months. The petitioner is also claiming arrears of salary for the period July, 1981 and other period which ranges more than 25 years prior to the filing of the writ petition. The claim 4 being stale and belated and cannot be permitted to be raised after such long lapse in this proceedings. However the petitioner, if so advised, may pursue his claim departmentally and which may be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. The writ petition stands disposed of with the directions aforesaid. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J. )