IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16150 of 2007 Shankar Singh @ Satish Kumar, Son of Late Krishnandan Singh, Resident of Village – Pawa, P.S. – Deepnagar, in the district of Nalanda at Biharsharif. ……… Petitioner Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, through its Secretary, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Joint Secretary (General Administration Department), Bihar State Electricity Board , Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Deputy Director of Accounts (Board Headquarter) Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Finance Controller, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. …………. Respondents ---------------------------------- 4 12.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Subhash Kishore Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the Respondents / Bihar State Electricity Board. The present writ petition was filed by the petitioner who is nephew of deceased employee with a prayer to direct the Respondents to pay all death-cum- retiral dues of his uncle who died in harness on 25.12.1995. In this case a counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondents/Board wherein it has been indicated that earlier after the death of uncle of the petitioner, son of sister of deceased employee had submitted pension paper and other documents thereafter dispute was raised by this petitioner. Finally, the authority of the Board asked the petitioner to produce succession certificate, 2 and subsequently, succession certificate was filed by the petitioner. This was reason for some delay in clearance of the dues. Learned counsel for the Board while referring to averment made in the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit submits that almost all the death-cum-retiral dues of the uncle of the petitioner have already been paid. From order dated 10/8/2011, it is evident, that a cheque for an amount of Rs. 18,973.24/- against leave encashment due of the uncle of the petitioner was handed over by Sri Subhash Kishore Verma, learned counsel for the Board to Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. So far as claim of clearance of gratuity is concerned, it has been stated that since the petitioner had not approached the authority concerned despite request made by the Board, relevant forms were dispatched to the petitioner for its submission for clearance of the gratuity amount. Even then, the petitioner has not responded. In view of the fact and circumstances, particularly the fact, that almost all the grievances of the petitioner have already been redressed, there is no need to keep the matter pending. The writ petition stands disposed of. However, so far as clearance of gratuity amount is concerned, it is directed, that if the petitioner 3 submits requisite forms regarding clearance of gratuity amount, the Respondents/Board will take all steps to make payment under the same head within a period of two months from the date of submission of forms. With above observation and direction the writ petition stands disposed of. Praful ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)