ORDER In this writ petition there are four petitioners, who retired on 31.1.1996, 31.1.1997, 30.9.1997 and 29.2.1996 while posted as Receptionist in the Public Relations Offices at different places, namely, Dumka, Buxar, Motihari, and Araria respectively. Their grievance is that despite lapse of two to three years, they have not been paid their post retiral dues. It is submitted by Mr. Jha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the payment of full post retiral dues has been kept withheld only on account of the fact that petitioners no.1, 3 and 4 have not passed the Accounts examination, and petitioner nO.2 had passed the said examination in 1983. It is also submitted that in view of the principle decided by this Court in the case of Sri Jai Krishna Jha vs. State of Bihar & ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 4200 of 1997, disposed of on 15.10.1998), the passing of Accounts Examination in the case of Receptionists is not one of the requirements which deprive the petitioners from getting pensionary benefits on the basis of last pay drawn. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that some of the petitioners have been paid their dues. However, with respect to some, in the absence of counter affidavit, learned counsel for the State has not been able to make his submission about their entitlement. This Court fails to appreciate as to how the payment of post retiral dues can be kept withheld on account of non-passing of the Accounts Examination even if that was the requirement. No such rule has been brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the State under which pensionary dues can be kept withheld on account of non-passing of the Accounts Examination. Even deduction from the pensionary dues of the excess payment on account of grant of increments without passing of any such examination has been held to be not permissible in the light of the principle decided by the Apex Court in the case of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18, unless it is hold that the same was drawn by misrepresentation or commission of fraud. However, in the facts and circumstances, it has rightly been suggested by the learned counsel for the parties that the petitioners should file representation separately before the Director General, Information and Public Relations Department, Government of Bihar, Patna (respondent no.3) about the details of their claim along with copies of the decisions judgments, on which they wish to place reliance. If such representation is filed, then respondent nO.3 shall examine the claim of respective petitioners separately and dispose it of by a reasoned order within two weeks of the receipt of the representation. The necessary sanction orders with respect to the amount as admitted in the said order must also be issued within the said time. The Accountant General, Bihar (respondent no.4), who is represented by Mr. Manu Shankar Mishra, is directed to issue necessary authority slip pursuant to the sanction order within a week of the receipt of the sanction order. In case of non-compliance of any part of this order, the concerned authority shall not draw his salary and other allowance till the order is fully complied. In case the petitioners are not satisfied with the decision of respondent no.3, they will be at liberty to agitate their grievance against it before the appropriate forum. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of.