ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 1. The petitioner in the present writ application seeks the following post retiral benefits, which according to him have not been either calculated properly or have been released to him under misconception of law:- (i) The petitioner is entitled to grant of the modified A.C.P. which has not been made available to him whereas others who are junior to the petitioner have been extended the same benefit. (ii) The petitioner further seeks payment of the benefit of gratuity up to Rs.10,00,00/- as per the new guideline which contained in Annexure-4. (iii) The petitioner is entitled to release the amount of 100% (10% of which has since been withheld) pension in view of the recent Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court cited in Civil Appeal No.6771 of 2013 reported in 2013(3) PLJR (SC) 458 (State of Jharkhand & others vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & anr.). (iv) For commutation of pension to the extent of 40% amounting to Rs.12.90 lacs with interest accruing thereon. (v) Leave encashment arrear due on account of modified A.C.P. along with interest accruing thereto from the date of retirement to the date of actual payment. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the State authorities have withheld his legitimate dues despite the fact that he has been requesting them to calculate and ascertain certain facts and figures for release of his emoluments, but the authorities have chosen to adopt their own parameters which are contrary to the normal principles adopted for release of such emolument. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that though the petitioner had addressed his representation to the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department. The State authority has chosen to ignore his just and valid claim and the representation remained pending till date. 4. Learned counsel for the State also strenuously urged that the respondents are not entitled to release of the amounts due to the petitioner as there is pendency of the Vigilance case which precludes them from doing so. 5. After perusing the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is evident that they have taken interest themselves for determining the representation which has been filed and it is only because of evasion from such issues that the present writ application has been filed before this Hon’ble Court. 5. After perusing the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is evident that they have taken interest themselves for determining the representation which has been filed and it is only because of evasion from such issues that the present writ application has been filed before this Hon’ble Court. Since many of the issues and release of post retiral emoluments and detailed calculation chart also refers to the relevant rules, it is advisable that the petitioner may file representation comprising each of the issues explaining clearly the amounts which would accrue to him, as per the present rule. While comprising the said representation it is advisable that the petitioner should annex the relevant documents and rules so as to facilitate an adjudication of the matter by the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, who will, after giving a personal hearing to the petitioner, take a final decision in the matter within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of the said representation and pass an appropriate order, If any amount is found due to the petitioner, the Principal Secretary will take appropriate steps to ensure that the petitioner is paid the same within a period of further six weeks from the date of decision so taken. 6. It further appears that so far as the question of grant of interest on payment of G.P.F. of the petitioner is concerned, a counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating that the petitioner is not entitled to be given interest at the rate of 12.5 % per annum as he did not follow the guidelines which were contained for attracting the said benefit. However, in response to the aforementioned submissions made by the learned counsel for the State learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said decision has been cited ignoring Annexure-7 which is letter dated 23.11.1996 issued by the Department of Finance which makes the petitioner entitled to grant of 12.5 % interest. 7. Be that as it may, the petitioner is directed to file fresh representation in this matter as well before the Assistant Commissioner, Provident Fund, Patna, who will examine the matter within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of the order and pass an appropriate and reasoned order in the light of the relevant rule and make further payment within six weeks thereafter. With the aforesaid directions the present writ application stands disposed of.