IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16311 of 2008 Sheo Shankar Prasad, Son of Ram Dahin Prasad, Resident of Village – Pratappur, P.O. & P.S. Kurtha, District – Arwal. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resource Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Secondary Education, Budha Marg, Patna. 4. The Under Secretary Department of Human Resources Development Department, New Secretariat, Patna. 5. The District Education Officer, Arwal-cum-Jehanabad at Jehanabad. 6. The District Provident Fund Officer, Arwal cum Jehanabad at Jehanabad. 7. The Treasury Officer, Jehanabad. 8. The Treasury Officer, Arwal, District – Arwal. 9. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. ------- Respondents ---------------------------------- 2 05.12.2011 Heard Sri Amarendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajeev Kumar, learned A.C. to Government Pleader No. 15, who appears on behalf of Respondent No. 1 to 8/State of Bihar and learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 9/Accountant General, Bihar. The petitioner, who retired on 31.05.2008 as ‘Headmaster- Ram Ratan High School, Sachai, Kurtha’ in the district of Arwal after not getting his all the retiral dues cleared approached this court by filing the present writ petition in the year 2008. Till date no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent/State. The Respondent/Accountant General, Bihar, has filed an affidavit on 25.11.2011 and it has been indicated that earlier in 2009 90% provisional pension and gratuity was 2 sanctioned and thereafter authorization in respect of final pension and gratuity along with authorization for earned leave was issued by the Accountant General, Bihar, in the year 2010 itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not in a position to inform the court as to whether as per authorization payment has been made to the petitioner or not nor learned counsel for Respondents is in a position to inform the court regarding the said fact. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that writ petition may be disposed of with an observation that if still after authorization by the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna, payment has not been made to the petitioner it may be made immediately. The court is of the opinion that a reasonable prayer has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to pay all the retiral dues as per authorization of the Accountant General, Bihar, if same has not been paid to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If so advised, the petitioner may also file representation claiming interest on delayed payment of retiral dues before Respondent No. 3 / Director, Secondary Education. If such representation is filed, the Respondent No. 3, is required to examine the 3 same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of filing of such representation. Even in case of refusal, the Respondent No. 3 is required to pass a speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner within two months from the date of filing of such representation. The writ petition stands disposed of. Praful ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)