ORDER : Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the outset that in the instant case, since the grievance of the petitioner is, for payment of retiral benefits, this writ petition may be disposed of at this stage without filing of counter-affidavit. 2. Learned J.C. to G.A. III for the respondent-State as well as Mr. Krishna Murari learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 raise no objection. 3. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for issuance of writ/direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents for payment of retiral benefits, arrear on account of wages during the period of suspension and re-instatement, arrear salary on account of difference as consequential benefits on the basis of 5th Pay Revision with effect from 01.01.2011 to 31.12.205 and also on the basis of 6th Pay revision with effect from 01.01.2006 to 30.09.2011 along with interest, if any. 4. Heard Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned J.C. to G.A. III for the respondent-State and Mr. Krishna Murari learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4. 5. Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell, is that, vide letter dated 23.11.1982, the Board of Directors appointed the petitioner on the post of Assistant in the office of the respondent no. 3. The respondent no. 4 served a charge-sheet and initiated a Departmental proceeding against the petitioner. The said charge sheet contains four charges. However, the petitioner submitted his reply. An enquiry was held. Enquiry report was submitted on 09.12.2004 with a recommendation to revoke the suspension order dated 26.10.2004 and also recommended to impose punishment of stoppage of one increment with a warning in future. Vide letter dated 03.01.2005, the petitioner was asked to file his show cause in respect of proposed punishment of termination from service and accordingly, on 20.01.2005, the petitioner submitted his show cause. However, vide office order dated 19.09.2005, the respondent no. 4 imposed punishment against the petitioner for dismissal from service. The petitioner challenged the said order by way of filing a writ application being W.P. (S) No. 1837 of 2006. During pendency of the writ application and vide letter dated 21.11.2007, the respondent no. 4 asked the petitioner and other co-employees to withdraw the said writ application for reconsideration in the matter. The petitioner challenged the said order by way of filing a writ application being W.P. (S) No. 1837 of 2006. During pendency of the writ application and vide letter dated 21.11.2007, the respondent no. 4 asked the petitioner and other co-employees to withdraw the said writ application for reconsideration in the matter. Thereafter, vide office order dated 14.06.2008, the respondent no. 4 re-instated the petitioner and other co-employees in their services by imposing punishment of withholding of two annual increments and warning. Accordingly, the petitioner joined his services and ultimately, he retired on 28.02.2013 from the post of Branch Manager, Maheshpur Branch of the respondent No.3. After retirement, the petitioner did not get proper retiral benefits and accordingly, on 08.08.2015, he made a representation (Annexure-4) before the respondent no. 4 with a prayer for fixing his retiral benefits by taking into consideration his continuous service but the respondents-authorities have not considered the same and the representation of the petitioner is still pending. Left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 6. Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if a direction will be issued to the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner vide Annexure-3 and 4 to the writ petition, then the grievance of the petitioner shall be redressed. 7. Learned J.C. to G.A. III for the respondent-State as well as Mr. Krishna Murari learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 have no serious objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. Considering the submissions of the respective parties and without delving into the merits of the case of the petitioner, the instant writ application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation annexing all the relevant documents within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the order and on receipt of the said representation, the respondents and more particularly, the respondent no. 3 shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks thereafter and the result thereof shall be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period. 9. 3 shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks thereafter and the result thereof shall be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period. 9. Needless to say that if the claim of the petitioner regarding retirement benefits and other service dues are found to be genuine and legally admissible, the same shall be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of three months along with statutory interest, if any. Petition disposed of.