Judgment · High Court

Heard Mr. M.Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.K.Adhikari, l earned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1 and 3. [2] Office note dated 02.12.2010 indicates that notice upon the res pondent No.2 had been served and the A/D card, after due service, had been retur ned but no one appears on behalf of the respondent No.2 and therefore, this cas e is proceeded ex-parte against the respondent No.2. [3] Having considered the nature of the grievance made out in the w rit petition and the relief sought for, I do not think any meaningful purpose w ill be served to keep this matter pending any further as the prayer in this writ petition is for release of retiral benefits for which sanction of Rs.81,619/- has already been accorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer(C), North Salmara, Abhay apuri. The case of the petitioner, as projected in the writ petition, i [4] s that the petitioner, who joined as LDA in the office of Abhayapuri Town Commit tee, retired from service on 31.01.2004, after 34 years of service, as Head Assi stant-cum-Accountant.

Admittedly, the post held by the petitioner is not a pensi onable post, however, the petitioner is entitled to retiral benefits like gratui ty, provident fund, leave encashment, group insurance benefits, etc. The SDO(C) , North Salmara, Abhayyapuri, sanctioned a sum of Rs.81,619/- as the final withd rawal of C.P.F. Account in terms of Rule 1618 of Model Contributory (F.F.Rule 19 62) vide Govt. letter No.DMA.523/97/9 dtd.17.2.98. The grievance of the petition er is that despite sanction of the amount, as stated above, the same has not be en released to the petitioner without assigning any reason. Hence, this writ pet ition. [5] This writ petition was filed in 2008 and no reply has been filed either disputing or controverting the averments and contentions made in the wri t petition despite the lapse of about three years. The learned Govt. Advocate i s not in a position, in the absence of any instruction from the Government, to d ispute the contention on the entitlement of the petitioner and at the same time, the respondent No,2, despite due notice, had not even entered appearance.

From these, it can be concluded that the respondents are not interested to oppose the writ petition. [6] In the circumstances as stated above, this Court is of the opin ion that ends of justice will be served better if I direct the respondents, more particularly, respondents No.2 and 3 to release the sanction amount of Rs.81,61 9/- as well as other entitlements like gratuity, leave encashment, group insuran ce, etc., to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of recei pt of a certified copy of this order. It is ordered accordingly. If the responde nts fail to release the amount as directed above by this Court, the same shall c arry an interest of 7% per annum from the date it become due i.e. after complet ion of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. [7] tands disposed of. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition s