Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for payment of retiral dues and arrears of salary as per 6th Pay Commission, which, according to the petitioner, was with -held by the respondents.
(2.) THE short fact of the case is that the petitioner retired from service as Police Inspector Arms on 31st August, 2008 and order of payment of provisional pension was issued vide letter no. 1390 dated 12th June, 2008 as contained in Annexure 1 @ Rs. 8732/ - per month. Further an amount of Rs. 1,61,935/ - was ordered to be paid as per earn leave encashment, according to the petitioner, vide letter no. 1392 dated 12th June, 2008. The petitioner has claimed that there should have been revision in the earn leave encashment pursuant to the 6th Pay Commission. The petitioner has further stated that he has been paid a sum of Rs. 1,13,325/ - as per group insurance vide sanction order No. 2450 dated 20th August, 2008. The petitioner also accepts that she has received the payment of gratuity of Rs. 2,94,698 vide letter No. 1391 dated 12th June, 2008. Now, the petitioner has sought relief as prayed for in para 8 of the writ petition. The respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit, wherein in para 8 they have stated that the circular for implementation of the earn leave encashment as per 6th Pay Revision is applicable with effect from 1st September, 2008, whereas the petitioner has retired on 31st August, 2008 itself. Accordingly, the petitioner has already been paid the earn leave encashment amount as per the pay scale, which was applicable to the petitioner. The respondents have further stated in para 10 that the pension and gratuity to the petitioner has already been revised as per 6th Pay Revision and revised PPO No. 674 has been issued by the Accountant General Jharkhand, Ranchi, vide Memo No. 659 dated 24th April, 2010 and arrears of pay, as per 6th Pay Revision, has been paid to the petitioner vide Commandant JAP No. 3 office Bill No. 102 dated 31st March, 2009 amounting to Rs. 69531/ - and Bill No. 144 dated 26th March, 2010 amounting to Rs. 80,868/ - . The petitioner, however, stated that there is dispute relating to the amount in question.
(3.) IN the facts and circumstances, it appears that the grievances of the petitioner have already been redressed. However, in case, there is certain dispute relating to the amount in question to which the petitioner is entitled, the petitioner is permitted to approach the respondents for redressal of such grievances, which will be considered by the respondents in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.;