IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.86 of 2010 MITRAJIT PRASAD S/O LATE HARI PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- EAST TILAK NAGAR, KANKARBAGH, PATNA-20 Versus 1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER, S.B.I. LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, WEST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA-1 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, MODULE, S.B.I. ZONAL OFFICE, PATNA 3. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, REGION-II, S.B.I. ZONAL OFFICE, PATNA 4. THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, COMMERCIAL BRANCH, PATLIPUTRA BRANCH (9600) PATNA-13 ----------- 06. 26.04.2010 Petitioner namely, Mitrajit Prasad appears in person and has produced a Vakalatnama with no objection of his previous counsel namely, Mr. Umesh Lal Verma and submits that he shall place his case in person. Petitioner was as such permitted to present in person. Heard the petitioner namely, Mitrajit Prasad in person who retired from the service of the Bank holding the rank of Middle Management Grade Scale – III (MMGS –III) on 31st of January 2006. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not paid the full amount of leave encashment and in nutshell it is submitted that the calculation sheet, as annexed with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Bank as contained in Annexure- B, is not correct for the reasons that the calculation made by the bank was not as per the relevant rules which 2 resulted into mistaken in calculation of the earned leave to his credit. Petitioner represented his grievance in this regard which remained unconsidered, and therefore, calculations for the earned leave by the bank as per Annexure- B be declared as incorrect. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – bank submits that the representations as contained in Annexures – 2 and 3 which is said to have been submitted to the bank is absolutely incorrect. As a matter of fact, these representations were not received by the bank however, bank considering the averments made in the paragraph - 13 of the writ application re-examined the matter and explained the calculation of his earned leave in paragraph -17 of the counter affidavit. Considering the submissions of the parties and their respective pleadings it appears to be a case involving dispute about calculation of the earned leave to the credit of the petitioner during his service tenure. The claim of the petitioner that the proper calculation was not made, has been denied by the bank and it has been asserted that the calculations are correct. In this view of the matter, this court is not in 3 a position to go into examining the correctness or otherwise of the accounting of the earned leave and such extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court is not fit to be exercised in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. However, it will be open for the petitioner to take any other recourse for redressal of his grievances in this regard if any, permissible under the law. Jagdish ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J)