Order 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Respondents have filed their counter affidavits in which it is relevant to point out that earlier this writ petitioner had moved this Court being W.P.(S) No. 4468 of 2007, which was disposed of vide order dated 3rd April, 2008 with liberty to the petitioner to approach before the competent authority along with representation raising his grievances. 3. The instant writ petition has been once again preferred by the writ petitioner inter alia claiming for the following remaining outstanding dues:- (a) For the release of salary for the period of October, 1973 to November, 1984 (11 Years) (b) Remaining leave encashment of Rs. 50,098. (c) Remaining yearly Bonus of Rs. 55166/- (d) Full payment of LLTC of Rs. 20,000/- (e) Full payment of P.F. of Rs. 45,000/- (f) Pension (g) Remaining payment of Gratuity and (h) for the payment of statutory rate of interest on the remaining amount. Vide order dated 02.03.2012, respondents-BCCL were directed to file categorical counter affidavit stating the payments made after passing of the reasoned order by the competent authority. The said supplementary counter affidavit has been filed, which is on record. It has been stated in para-4 of the supplementary counter affidavit that gratuity amount of Rs. 1,39,812 has been paid vide A/c payee cheque No. 626934 dated 18.10.2002, difference of gratuity on account of pay revision Rs. 16622 has been paid by A/c payee cheque no. 990107 dated 12.05.2007 and against leave encashment, a sum of Rs. 11402.16 has been paid vide cheque no. 006231 dated 13.01.2003. It has further stated that the office of Regional Commissioner, CMPF has settled the pension amounting to Rs. 1230/-per month and the same is being disbursed. So far as provident fund claims is concerned, it has stated that respondents have forwarded the claim to the Regional Commissioner, CMPF, Dhanbad vide letter dated 10.05.2002 and the office of the Regional Commissioner, CMPF has disbursed the amount. It has further been stated that there is no claim of LLTC pending with the respondent and hence, nothing is due. So far as provident fund claims is concerned, it has stated that respondents have forwarded the claim to the Regional Commissioner, CMPF, Dhanbad vide letter dated 10.05.2002 and the office of the Regional Commissioner, CMPF has disbursed the amount. It has further been stated that there is no claim of LLTC pending with the respondent and hence, nothing is due. In respect of payment of salary for the period of October, 1973 to November, 1984, it has stated that the petitioner has been paid his full salary for the period he discharged his duties under Block-II Area of M/s BCCL and therefore, the answering respondent is not in a position to offer any comment with regard to the payment of salary for the period of October, 1973 to November, 1984. It has also been stated regarding the payment of remaining yearly bonus that a sum of Rs. 6334.74 has already been paid to the petitioner for the period he worked under the Block-II Area of BCCL. 4. In this 2nd writ petition, petitioner should have approached this Court with the necessary materials and particulars challenging each and every grounds by which he alleges that adequate payments have not been made, which are legally admissible to him. This writ petition is totally lacking in necessary materials, particulars. The respondents have categorically stated regarding the payment made to the petitioner through their supplementary counter affidavits. However, they are not in a position to offer any comment regarding the payment of salary for the period of October, 1973 to November, 1984. 5. Since, petitioner was retired from the service on 31.03.2002 from the post of Night Guard/Security Guard from the BCCL, Madhuban Coal Washery, I allow the petitioner to agitate his grievances relating to the non-payment of salary for the period of October, 1973 to November, 1984 by making representation along with necessary details and supporting documents before the competent authority within a period of two weeks. In case, such representation is filed before the concerned respondents, he would consider the same in accordance with law and pass a speaking and reasoned order within a period of eight weeks thereafter and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner. 6. In case, such representation is filed before the concerned respondents, he would consider the same in accordance with law and pass a speaking and reasoned order within a period of eight weeks thereafter and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner. 6. It is made clear that if the petitioner is found entitled to the dues legally admissible to him relating to the aforesaid period of service, the same should be paid within six weeks thereafter with statutory interest, if any. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Appeal dismissed.