IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10965 of 2005 SHRI ANARSI PRASAD SAH S/o- Late Krishna Sah resident of village & P.O.Lalapur Bhader P.S.- Kahalgaon Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through its Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Planning and Development, having its office in Old Secretariat, Patna -15 2. the Director, Statistics & Evaluation, Govt. of Bihar, having its office in old Secretariat, Barrack No. 17 Patna. 15 3. The Accountant General, Bihar & Jharkhand (A &E), II Bihar Patna having its office at Birchand Patel Path, Patna. 4. The Treasury Officer, Dist. Hazaribagh. 5. The State of Jharkhand, through its Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Planning and development, Jharkhand at Ranch. ----------- 2 02.04.2010 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, learned A.C. to G.A.7 for the State, learned counsel for the Accountant General and Mr. Dhruba Mukherjee, learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand and its authorities. The writ petition was filed for payment of the post retiral benefits of the petitioner who superannuated with effect from 31.7.1995 while posted in the State of Jharkhand. Although in terms of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 the liability of payment of post retiral dues of such employees who 2 superannuated prior to the cut of date was that as the State of Bihar and though no counter affidavit has been filed by the State of Bihar and its authorities but an exhaustive counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Jharkhand and its authorities from where the petitioner superannuated. A perusal of the contents of the counter affidavit demonstrates that almost the entire admissible post retiral dues and other dues of the petitioner has since been paid to him except G.P.F. amount which according to the respondent, is pending by reason of non submission of final withdrawal form. Although the counter affidavit was served on learned counsel for the petitioner in the year, 2006 and the matter has been taken up after almost four years, from the said date but no rejoinder controverting the said statement, has been placed on record of the proceeding. In that view of the matter, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and the same is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to raise his grievance before the authority concerned in case any of the admissible claims have remained 3 pending and which should be considered and disposed of in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from receipt of such representation. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J. )