IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2812 of 2006 SHYAMA KANT THAKUR son of Shobhakant Thakur, resident of village Satlakha, Post Rahika, Police Station Rahika, District Madhubani Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary Bihar Government, Patna. 2. The Commissioner, Saran Division, Saran (Chapra) 3. The Collector, Chapra. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, chapra. 5. The Establishment Deputy Collector, Chapra. 6. The Deputy Collector District Revenue II, Chapra. 7. The Director Provident Fund Bihar, Patna. 8. The District Provident Fund Officer, Chapra. 9. The Block Development Officer, Sonepur Block, Chapra. 10. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. ----------- 3 07.04.2010 Mr. Gyan Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Girijesh Kumar, learned A.C. to A.A.G.3 for the State and Mr. Raj Nandan Prasad, learned counsel for the Accountant General are present. The petitioner superannuated from the post of Senior Selection Grade Assistant with effect from 31.12.1999 and came before this Court through the present writ petition for payment of his post retiral and other dues as set out in paragraph 1 of the writ petition. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 6, copy whereof were served on learned counsel for the 2 petitioner on 19.10.2006, and in which the details of payment made to the petitioners has been set out in paragraphs 4 to 6 thereof. It is stated that although the amounts towards G.P.F., earned leave, arrears of gratuity, commuted leave, final pension and gratuity has since been paid to the petitioner who has duly received the same but in so far as difference of revised pay, dearness allowance and some other dues it is stated that despite request being made to the petitioner he is not coming fonward to receive the same. It is further stated that bill for A.C.P. has been prepared and is also lying in the Treasury by reason of non receipt thereof by the petitioner. It is thus submitted that most of the payments of the petitioner has been paid to him but the others are remaining by reason of the laches on the part of the petitioner in receiving the same. Having regard to the circumstances set forth in the counter affidavit, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and the same is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to receive his pending claims, if already not received and in the event any dispute remains 3 subsisting, he would be at liberty to raise the same before the authority concerned and which should be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J. )