IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5061 of 2009 Md. Najamuddin alias Md. Nizamuddin, son of Late Tasoware Hussain, resident of Village- Gogi Pothia, P.O.- Pothia, P.S. Simraha, District- Araria. .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Commissioner and Secretary, Rural Development, Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Director, Panchayati Raj, Panchayat Raj Directorate, Bihar, Patna. 4. District Magistrate, Purnea. 5. Block Development Officer, Srinagar Block, District- Purnea. ... Respondents. ----------- 02- 24.4.2009 Heard Mr. Gyanand Roy for the petitioner, and Mr. Krishna Chandra Jha, learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel No.18. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to make payment of the entire money benefits admissible to him in the circumstances indicated hereinbelow. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was working as a Panchayat Sewak. He was subjected to a departmental proceeding and was ultimately dismissed from service. The petitioner challenged the same by preferring CWJC No.3253 of 1996, which was allowed by order dated 30.9.1997 (Annexure-4), 2 whereby the order of dismissal was quashed, inter alia, on the ground that copy of the enquiry report was not served on him. This Court, inter alia, observed in the order that the respondent authorities shall be at liberty to issue another show-cause notice to him along with a copy of the enquiry report and proceed in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was reinstated in service as per the direction of the High Court, was never served with a fresh show-cause notice, until his superannuation on 31.10.2007, nor thereafter. He further submits that the petitioner is being paid his entire post-retirement benefits without any grievance to him. He, therefore, seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to make payment of his all dues admissible to him during the period he was in harness. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. No useful purpose will be served by keeping this writ petition pending in this Court and calling for the counter affidavit. In that view of the matter, let the petitioner submit an 3 exhaustive representation before respondent no.4 who shall dispose of the same by a reasoned order taking to its logical conclusion. This Court will be pleased if the entire process is completed within a period of four months of the date of submission of the representation. 4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/