IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14623 of 2008 Rajeshwar Upadhyay, Son of Late Ram Chandra Upadhaya, resident of Village & P.O. Korara, Police Station- Paliganj, District-Patna, presently residing at Village- & P.O. Wasilpur, P.S. Arwal, District- Arwal ----------------------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, New Secretariat, Patna 3. The Director, Secondary Education Department, Budh 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, Arwal at Arwal 8. The Accountant General,Bihar,Patna ------------------- Respondents ---------------------------------- 02 24-11-2011 Heard Sri Amrendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Tripurari Nath Ambastha, learned A.C. to Standing Counsel no.23 appearing on behalf of Respondent nos. 1 to 7 and learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no.8/ Accountant General ,Bihar. The petitioner, who retired on 31.05.2008 from the post of Headmaster, High School, Fatehpur Sanda, Arwal , after not being paid his retiral dues had filed the present writ petition in the year 2008 after serving a copy of the writ petition on learned counsel for all the Respondents. In this case only Respondent no.7/ Treasury Officer, Arwal and Respondent no.8/ Accountant General, Bihar, 2 Patna have filed their respective counter affidavits. The relevant Respondents, particularly Respondent no.5/ District Education Officer, Arwal-cum-Jehanabad at Jehanabad as well as Respondent no.6/ District Provident Fund Officer, Arwal-cum-Jehanabad at Jehanabad have not responded to the writ petition. The petitioner in the present writ petition has made categorical statement that no departmental proceeding was pending against him nor anything was due against him. From the counter affidavit of Accountant General, Bihar, it is evident that provisional pension and gratuity to the extent of 90 % was authorized. Similarly, unutilized earned leave for 220 days was authorized by the Accountant General, Bihar. In view of the fact that the petitioner retired in the year 2008, no proceeding was pending against him as asserted in the writ petition, the Court is of the opinion that there was no reason to withhold sanctioning of full pension and gratuity of the petitioner. No counter affidavit has been filed by other Respondents except Respondent nos.7 and 8. In view of the facts as indicated, the writ petition stands allowed with a direction to the Respondent State authority to issue sanction order in respect of full pension along with arrear of remaining amount of pension and gratuity along with admissible statutory interest, which is to be calculated from the date of claim till the date of payment. So 3 far as claim of amount of G.P.F. is concerned, Respondent no.6/ District Provident Fund Officer, Arwal-cum- Jehanabad is directed to make payment of amount of G.P.F. to the petitioner along with admissible statutory interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Sanction order regarding full pension and remaining gratuity must be issued within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Respondent no.8/ Accountant General, Bihar is required to issue authorization within four weeks after receipt of sanction order from the State authority. It is further made clear that after receipt of authorization from the Accountant General, Bihar, the Respondent no.7/ Treasury Officer, Arwal will take all steps for payment of the dues to the petitioner within a period of two weeks. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised dispute on the claim of leave encashment. It was submitted that the petitioner was entitled to leave encashment of 239 days. However, sanction was made only for 220 days. The Court is of the opinion that for such dispute, the petitioner may file proper representation before the Respondent no.3/ Director, Secondary Education, Department, Patna, who is required to examine the same and pass appropriate order regarding claim of leave encashment within a period of two months from the date of filing of such representation. Even in case of refusal, 4 Respondent no.3 is required to pass speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner within two months from the date of filing of such representation. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)