IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2431 of 2010 (Arising out of LPA No. 223 of 2010) 1. Ramudit Singh, son of Sri Dashrat Singh, Resident of village-Maheshpur, P.O.-Karandey and District-Sheikhpura………………………Petitioner. Versus 1. Sunil Kumar Singh, Chairman, son of not known, Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union Ltd., Biscomaun Bhawan, Patna. 2. Ashok Kumar Jha, Managing Director, son of not known, Bihar State Co- operation Union Ltd., Biscomaun Bhawan, Patna. 3. The State of Bihar. …………..Opposite Parties. ----------- 10. 13-10-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Biscomaun. According to the petitioner, the order of the Division Bench passed in L.P.A. No. 223/2010 contained in Annexure-1 has not been fully complied with because salary for the month of November, 2006 and gratuity as well as leave encashment has not been paid to the petitioner. Petitioner also disputes the calculations made by the Biscomaun. Learned counsel for the Biscomaun submits that all the admitted dues of salary have already been paid and in case the petitioner feels that he is entitled for salary for the month of November, 2006 also, he may make a representation which shall be considered in accordance with law at an early date. So far as claim for gratuity and leave encashment is concerned, the stand of opposite parties is that the petitioner was removed from service and thereafter he is not entitled to such benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the aforesaid stand taken on behalf of 2 the Biscomaun. A perusal of the order of the Division Bench contained in Annexure-1 shows that the appeal was dismissed and hence, the direction of the Writ Court to pay the entire dues salary of the petitioner had to be carried out. There was no specific determination as to whether salary for the month of November, 2006 was payable and was due or not. In that view of the matter, we permit the petitioner to file a representation claiming salary for the month of November, 2006. Such representation shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of its filing and if the claim of the petitioner is accepted, the due salary shall be paid within two weeks thereafter. In case, the claim is not accepted then reasons should be communicated to the petitioner without any delay and he would be at liberty to pursue his claim through appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. The Writ Court or the Appellate Court had no occasion to decide whether the petitioner after termination of service was entitled for gratuity and leave encashment or not. A direction to post retiral benefit will always mean a direction to pay only the admitted post retiral benefits in absence of any specific adjudication by the Division Bench which has noticed in Annexure-1 that during the pendency of the appeal the service of the petitioner had been terminated. 3 In view of the aforesaid discussion, we grant liberty to the petitioner that he may claim for gratuity and leave encashment through an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. In case there is any error in calculation, the same may be pointed out to the Biscomaun in the representation mentioned above and such grievance shall also be considered and disposed of by the Biscomaun within the time indicated above. This contempt application is finally disposed of. Mkc/ (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)