ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi (hereinafter to be referred as "J.S.E.B.") and Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna (hereinafter to be referred as "B.S.E.B.") and perused the show cause filed by the Chairman, Jharkhand State Electricity Board. 2. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the JSEB, produced a copy of letter No. 2027, dated 27th April, 2005 issued by the Secretary, JSEB, Ranchi and handed over an account payee cheque dated 26th April, 2005 issued in the name of Binay Kumar Pore for a sum of Rs. 2,69,392.62 paise and handed it over to Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner for onward transmission. It is stated that the aforesaid amount has been paid towards revised gratuity (Rs. 1,99,877.38 paise) and commutation of pension (Rs. 69,515.24 paise). It is further informed that there is no further amount, payable by the JSEB to the petitioner. 3. Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amount towards commutation of pension has been calculated from the date of unrevised pension, without taking into consideration that the revised pension has been allowed by JSEB in favour of the petitioner. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, though there is a delay, this Court is not inclined to proceed further against the opposite party, he having complied with the order of this Court substantially. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the competent authority, if the commutation of pension has been wrongly calculated on the basis of unrevised pension. In such a situation, the competent authority will look into the matter and pass appropriate order within two months from the date of receipt of representation, as may be made by the petitioner. 5. Earlier this Court had noticed that an agreement was reached between the JSEB and BSEB, wherein it was determined as to how the retiral benefits will be paid to the employees, who retired prior to creation of the State of Jharkhand but after reorganisation of the State. The agreement was approved by the Supreme Court. Later on, it was informed that an order was subsequently issued by the JSEB, nullifying the said agreement. 6. Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the BSEB informed that the JSEB has recalled the said order. Mr. The agreement was approved by the Supreme Court. Later on, it was informed that an order was subsequently issued by the JSEB, nullifying the said agreement. 6. Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the BSEB informed that the JSEB has recalled the said order. Mr. R. Krishna, learned counsel for the JSEB referred to an affidavit filed on behalf of the JSEB. It is stated that there are some confusion regarding arrangement, made between the JSEB and BSEB for payment of retiral benefits which has now been removed and the agreement as was affirmed by the Supreme Court will not be disturbed and the payment of retiral benefits shall be made in terms of the said agreement. 7. Under the circumstances, no order is required to be passed with regard to the agreement between JSEB and the BSEB who are bound to act as per the agreement. 8. This application stands disposed of accordingly.