IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5079 of 2008 Radha Mohan Mishra , Son of Sri Brij Kumar Mishra, resident of Mohalla- New Police Line, Sankat Mochan Nagar, Ara, P.S. Ara Nawadah, District-Bhojpur --------------------------------- Petitioner Versus 1. The Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., Budh Marg,Patna through its Chairman 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., Budh Marg,Patna 3. The Managing Director, The Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., Budh Marg,Patna ------------------------------ Respondents. ---------------------------------- 02 14-09-2011 Heard Sri Jai Shankar Pathak, 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 was employed as Field Officer and while he was posted at Dinara Branch of the Bank, in view of the Bank decision , the petitioner had opted for voluntary retirement in the year 2006, which was subsequently accepted. However, even though voluntary retirement of the petitioner was accepted by the Bank, terminal dues were not paid to the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition in the year 2008. The petitioner had enumerated his claim in paragraph-12 of the writ petition, which are as follows: (i) Amount of salary for the working period i.e. Dec.2004 to April,2005, August 2005 to December 2005 and July 2006 to December,2006. (ii) Amount of difference of salary due to time 2 bound promotion. (iii) Amount of gratuity (iv) Amount of increased salary (v) Amount of earned leave (vi) Amount of salary for 45 days with D.A. for every year under V.R.S. Scheme. In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent/Bank on 30th August, 2011. In the counter affidavit, the Respondent/Bank has virtually not disputed the claim of the petitioner but a plea has been taken that due to financial crunch, payment of dues are being made in the Bank in the chronological manner. The Bank in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit has stated that Provident Fund amount and amount of Group Insurance were already paid prior to filing of the writ petition in the year 2007 to the petitioner. Regarding payment of gratuity, arrear of salary and other dues, it has been admitted that the said amount will be paid in chronological manner as per the list maintained by the Bank. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that similar plea was taken by the Bank in a case reported in 2011 (3) PLJR 573 ( Mithilesh Kumar Singh Vs. Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikash Bank Ltd. ) and even after such objection, this Court had allowed the writ petition directing the Respondent/Bank to make payment of the dues within the specified period. 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.3 to take all steps to 3 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.)