ORAL ORDER I A No. 7852 of 2014 This Application is made by one Sanjay Sharma, presumably under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for substitution as the heir and legal representative of the sole petitioner Sachida Nand Sharma. 2. Pending the Petition, the sole petitioner Sachida Nand Sharma has died on 29th November 2013, leaving the applicant as his heir. Learned advocate Mr. Praveen Kumar Agrawal appears for the applicant Sanjay Sharma. 3. He states that the applicant is the only heir of late Sachida Nand Sharma. Application is allowed. The applicant Sanjay Sharma be impleaded as the heir and legal representative of the sole petitioner Sachida Nand Sharma. Necessary amendment to the cause title will be made in red ink within 15 days from today. 4. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of in the above terms. CWJC No. 3727 of 2009 5. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by one Sachida Nand Sharma, a former employee of the Government of Bihar. Pending the Petition, the sole petitioner has died. Petition has been pursued by his legal representative, son Sanjay Sharma. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that he had joined the service of the State of Bihar in 1965 as a Correspondence Clerk under the District Fisheries Officer, Muzaffarpur. While in employment, he was transferred from one place to the other. Last on 2nd September 1982, the petitioner was transferred to the office of the Chief Executive Officer, Fishery Development Department, Bettiah. The petitioner has admitted that he did not comply with the said order of transfer and never reported for duty pursuant to his transfer to Bettiah. It is the claim of the petitioner that he was suffering from eye ailment; he underwent treatment at Lehan Eye Hospital in Nepal, but turned blind in both his eyes. Because of his blindness he could not report for duty. According to the official record, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation in 1997. In 2009, he approached this Court for release of his retiral benefits for the service rendered from 1965 to 1982. The petition is supported by the affidavit made by Sanjay Sharma, the son of the petitioner. The delay in filing the Writ Petition is explained. According to the official record, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation in 1997. In 2009, he approached this Court for release of his retiral benefits for the service rendered from 1965 to 1982. The petition is supported by the affidavit made by Sanjay Sharma, the son of the petitioner. The delay in filing the Writ Petition is explained. According to the petitioner, he could not approach the Court on account of his blindness and that the son Sanjay Sharma was residing in Surat, Gujarat. On his return from Surat, Gujarat, the said Sanjay Sharma has filed the Petition. 7. The Petition is contested by the State of Bihar. It has come on record that on 15th December 1987 the Joint Director of Fisheries had issued notice to the petitioner to report for duty pursuant to the transfer order dated 2nd September 1982, failing which action may be taken under Rule 76 of the Bihar Service Code. The State Government has also made categorical statement that the petitioner had never applied for release of his retiral dues. 8. Rule 76 of the Bihar Service Code, inter alia, enjoins the State Government to remove the Government servant from service if he remains absent or overstays the leave period continuously for five years. The said Rule also requires that such Government servant may be removed after following the procedure laid down in the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 and the Bihar & Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1935. It is not in dispute that the State Government has not taken action for removal of the petitioner from service in accordance with Rule 76 of the Bihar Service Code. 9. Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to retiral benefits except the amount of General Provident Fund. Although the petitioner has maintained that in 1982 he had turned completely blind, the statement is not supported by contemporaneous evidence. If the petitioner underwent treatment in an eye hospital and had turned blind, he has not produced any medical record. The petitioner, at the relevant time, did not inform the authority about his incapacity to perform duty, nor till the date of the Petition. The petitioner did not apply for invalid retirement either. If the petitioner underwent treatment in an eye hospital and had turned blind, he has not produced any medical record. The petitioner, at the relevant time, did not inform the authority about his incapacity to perform duty, nor till the date of the Petition. The petitioner did not apply for invalid retirement either. The petitioner remained silent for 15 years till he attained the age of superannuation in 1997, and for further 12 years till he filed Petition in 2009. In the circumstances, the only inference the Court can draw is that the petitioner did not want to report for duty at Bettiah and had simply abandoned the service. In any view, this is a clear case of abandonment of service. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to the terminal benefits. The petitioner would however be entitled to the recovery of the amounts standing to his credit in his General Provident Fund account. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the Petition is partially allowed. The substituted petitioner Sanjay Sharma will approach the respondent no.4 the District Fishery Officer, Motihari for recovery of General Provident Fund amount of the deceased writ petitioner. The said Sanjay Sharma will make appropriate application in the required form and complete the required formalities. On receipt of the application and completion of the formalities, the application will be processed and the amount of General Provident Fund standing to the credit of late Sachida Nand Sharma will be paid to the nominee, or in case of absence of any nomination or the death of the nominee, to the son Sanjay Sharma. Such payment will be made preferably within three months from the date of the receipt of the completed application. 11. The parties will bear their own costs. 12. The Registry will send copy of this order to the respondent no.4 the District Fishery Officer, Motihari.