Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an Order dated 10th June, 2004, Annexure-7 as also letter dated 12th March, 2005, Annexure-9 whereby the respondents have treated the period from 6.2.1996 to 28.10.1997 as mixed leave that means part of it as earned leave, part of it as half pay leave and the rest leave without pay. 3. The grounds to challenge the same on behalf of the petitioner are that the respondent-District Education Officer, Ranchi himself vide communication dated 4th June, 1999, Annexure-5 addressed to the Office of the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna has accepted that the petitioner had worked during the said period and has not drawn salary from two places but from only place of his posting at High School, Kersai, District-Gumla. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner despite that at the time of processing of his post retiral benefits, the respondents have counted the said period as on leave and thereon sanctioned different leaves for the said period though, the petitioner was working during the said period. 5. The petitioner has also sought quashing of letter No. 737 dated 7.4.2005 issued by Deputy Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Ranchi, Annexure-10 by which the salary drawn for the said period is sought to be recovered from the admissible dues of gratuity of the petitioner. 6. The respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. That stand taken by the State-respondent is that the petitioner had approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 996 of 1996 (R) which was disposed of on 22.8.1996 to decide the representation of the petitioner while directing that no coercive measures shall be taken against him. That writ petition was directed against an order of transfer which was made at the verge of the retirement of the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner did not proceed to join at the transfer place of posting at High School, Kersai, Gumla and as such did not perform any duty for the said period for the reasons best known to him. On the communication of the Office of Accountant General, the salary paid in excess for the said period is being• recovered from the admissible dues of gratuity payable to the petitioner after his retirement in 1998. 8. On the communication of the Office of Accountant General, the salary paid in excess for the said period is being• recovered from the admissible dues of gratuity payable to the petitioner after his retirement in 1998. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant material available on record, Annexure-5 dated 4th June, 1999 issued by the District Education Officer, Ranchi addressed to the Office of Accountant General, Bihar is conclusive of the fact that the petitioner had worked and drawn salary for the post of Headmaster from the district of Gumla for the period in question. Order dated 22.8.1996 passed by Patna High Court as contained at Annexure-1 clearly stipulate that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in respect of the order of transfer which was challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, appears to have continued to work and has drawn salary from District-Gumla, which has been admitted by the respondent themselves. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts, therefore, the Orders contained at Annexures-7, 9 and 10 cannot be sustained in law as well as on the facts and are accordingly set aside. 10. It will be open to the respondents to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself in accordance with law where after admissible dues, if any, shall be paid to him. 11. The present writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid terms.