Order Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner retired on 31.1.2001 from the post of Block Development Officer while posted at Nagar Untari Block in the District of Garhwa. As it appears that the main grievance of the petitioner is that though he is legally entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 6,05,195/- towards the Provident Fund Account but in fact, he has been paid only a sum of Rs. 4,79,146/- on 14.2.2003 and the balance of Rs. 1,26,049/- has not yet been paid to him. Accordingly, prayer has been made to direct the respondents to pay the aforesaid amount with interest. According to the petitioner, though he filed several representations before the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa for payment of his legal dues but till today, part of G.P.F. amount has not been paid to him. 3. A counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent no. 2 i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa has been filed duly affidavited by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Garhwa. It has not been disputed in the counter affidavit that the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs. 6,05,195/- under G.P.F. and only a sum of Rs. 4,79,146/- has been paid to him whereas, a sum of Rs. 1,26,000/- has been withheld. The reason for withholding the aforesaid amount has been stated to be that in an enquiry and inspection by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, it was found that a sum of Rs. 1,26,000/- and odd was missing in the Cash Book of Block Development Officer, Nagar Untari, District-Garhwa during the tenure of the petitioner posted there as Block Development Officer in between the period 19.5.1999-26.1.2000. The District Accounts Officer was requested to inspect the records, who after inspection, recommended for inspection by the Special Audit Team vide his letter dated 4.12.2001. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the steps for audit of Cash Book was being taken and therefore, the aforesaid amount has been withheld. 4. In a rejoinder to the counter affidavit, the petitioner has stated that the Accounts were not being maintained in his office by his predecessors and he brought this fact to the notice of his higher authorities regarding such irregularities and for up to date audit of the Accounts, upon which, an enquiry was ordered by the Deputy Commissioner to be conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari. In an enquiry conducted by the Executive Magistrate, it was found that the accounts were not being maintained by the Nazir. The petitioner was also not handed over all the Ledgers and Accounts Books when he took the charge and the matter was inquired by the Deputy Commissioner against his predecessor. The discrepancies in the Accounts Book were also admitted by the Block Nazir even prior to assumption of charge by the petitioner. Accordingly, it is stated by the petitioner that he has not committed any irregularities rather, he has brought such discrepancies to the notice of his higher authorities that the Ledgers and Accounts were not being maintained and steps were taken by him to regularize it. He has further stated that withholding of the amount of his G.P.F. is not permissible under the law. 5. By Order dated 14.6.2006, this Court directed the respondents to file fresh counter affidavit giving the details of special audit conducted, if any, so far and if no special audit has been conducted, the reasons for not doing so and the Officer, who has failed to constitute the special audit. But as it appears, even after lapse of more than three year, no such counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents as directed by this Court nor they have given any plausible reason for not doing so. Therefore, it can very well be seen that on the one hand, the respondents have failed to conduct any audit of the accounts by any special audit team and on the other hand, the petitioner has been deprived of his legitimate claim since retirement in January, 2001, the balance amount of G.P.F. has been withheld by the respondents for no justifiable reasons, denying his legitimate right. The action of the respondents in withholding the balance amount of G.P.F. of the petitioner without any inquiry or audit, as aforesaid, is certainly an arbitrary action on their part. Till date, neither the accounts have been audited or inspected nor any departmental proceeding has been initiated against him. 6. In this view of the matter,. this writ petition is being disposed of by directing the respondent nO.2-Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa to pay the balance amount of G.P.F. amounting to a sum of Rs. Till date, neither the accounts have been audited or inspected nor any departmental proceeding has been initiated against him. 6. In this view of the matter,. this writ petition is being disposed of by directing the respondent nO.2-Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa to pay the balance amount of G.P.F. amounting to a sum of Rs. 1,26,049/- alongwith interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of retirement i.e. 31.1.2001 till the date of payment within a period of eight weeks' from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.