IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4819 of 2008 Nand Kumar Singh, Son of Late Banwari Singh, resident of Village- Chhachchubigha, P.O. Katauna, P.S. Katrisarai, District-Nalanda, retired Senior Area Officer, Land Development Bank, Branch –Warsaliganj, District-Nawadah ------------------------------Petitioner Versus 1. The Bihar State Land Development Bank Ltd. Patna having its office at Budh Marg,Patna through its Secretary 2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Land Development Bank Ltd. Patna 3. The Director ( Personnel) Bihar State Land Development Bank Ltd., Budh Marg, Patna 4. The Senior Accounts Officer, Land Development Bank Ltd., Headquarter, Patna 5. The Area Manager, Land Development Bank Ltd.,Gaya 6. The Branch Manager, Land Development Bank Ltd, Warsaliganj, District-Nawada ------------------- Respondents. ---------------------------------- 02 14-09-2011 Heard Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the Respondents/ Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd, Patna. The petitioner, who retired on 31.12.2006 as Senior Area Officer, Warsaliganj Branch, has prayed for directing the Respondents to make payment of retiral dues; such as Gratuity, leave encashment, due salary and other dues. In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent/Bank on 29th August, 2011. In the counter affidavit, the Respondent/Bank has not disputed the claim of the petitioner but a plea has been taken that due to financial crunch, payment of dues has not been made to the petitioner. However, it has been asserted on oath that Provident Fund amount and Group Insurance have already been paid to the petitioner before filing of 2 the writ petition. The petitioner in the writ petition has not claim for such dues. So far as plea of financial crunch is concerned, the same plea was taken by the Bank in an earlier case, in which the petitioner of the said case had filed a detailed counter affidavit and, thereafter the Court had come to the conclusion that presently, there is no such alarming situation for the Bank to deny retiral dues. In a case reported in 2011 (3) PLJR 573 ( Mithilesh Kumar Singh Vs. Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikash Bank Ltd. ) ,this Court in similar situation had directed the Respondent/ Bank to clear all the retiral dues within the specified period with admissible statutory interest. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition can also be allowed in the same terms i.e. in terms of the order passed in Mithilesh Kumar Singh’s case (supra). Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed directing the Respondents, particularly Respondent no.2 to take all steps to pay the dues, as admitted in the counter affidavit, to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order along with admissible statutory interest. So far as claim regarding promotion to the petitioner is concerned, this Court is not recording any opinion on this issue. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to avail other remedy for such relief. With above observation and direction, the writ petition stands allowed. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)