JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, C.J. Petitioner retired on 31.01.2016 as Deputy Logging Officer from the first respondent Corporation. The complaint in this writ petition relates to not making available the retirement benefits. 2. According to the petitioner, in the year, 2014, working plan for logging year 2014-15 was prepared and, accordingly, office order bearing No. 146/Logging/General/2014-15 dated 21.7.2014 was issued and, accordingly, working plan for East Kaladungi Division was also prepared. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner was allowed the lots bearing Nos. 96, 97, 98, 99, 116, 117, 118, 199/14-15 and 139/13-14 for cutting of trees and bushes and other allied work in Tarai Kendriya Van Prabhag Range Barhani, Pipal Parow, Haldwani. Petitioner, after completing the work, submitted the bill of expenses for conducting the aforesaid work. The bills were not verified by respondent no. 4, therefore, the petitioner made various communications (Annexure No. 3). The complaint is that the bills so presented for the work allotted to the petitioner have not been verified / cleared by the respondent so far and an amount of Rs. 29,35,000/- was shown as outstanding against the petitioner. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed, to which rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. 4. In the counter affidavit, it is inter alia stated that the work of digging of the roots were made by the JCB, but the bills produced by the petitioner are by the labourers, therefore, there is an apprehension that he submitted forged bills of labourers. The said fact came in the report when the joint inspection of the work was made. The Joint Inspection Report is marked as Annexure CA-1. It is stated that the letter dated 22.07.2015 specifically speaks that the petitioner has been directed to send the ravanna for the work executed by him in accordance with rules whereas give some sanction, the competent authority directed him through letters to submit the detail report for clarification on the certain points but the same has not been provided by him. The said letter further makes it clarify that the petitioner has been directed to produce receipt of the ravanna by the depot but the petitioner is misinterpreting the said letter his own way. Petitioner was given work advance of about Rs. 29,35,000/- to execute the work of lopping including bush cutting, digging of the roots etc. The said letter further makes it clarify that the petitioner has been directed to produce receipt of the ravanna by the depot but the petitioner is misinterpreting the said letter his own way. Petitioner was given work advance of about Rs. 29,35,000/- to execute the work of lopping including bush cutting, digging of the roots etc. The digging work in the roots of lot no. 139 was executed through JCB machine and loading the roots through loaders but the bills have not been produced by the petitioner for the same; whereas the bills produced for the work in the lot nos. 96, 119 of 2014-15 were also incomplete. Petitioner vide letter dated 21.10.2015 in response of the letter dated 20.10.2015 sent by him has been informed that the bills are not available in the office. On 25.05.2016, the bills produced by the petitioner are of 37,07,521/-, in which some irregularities were found and the petitioner vide letter dated 04.06.2016 was directed to present in the office for clarification of the same but he did not turn up, thereafter, further letter was sent requesting him to be present to clarify, but he did not present to clarify the irregularities. It is stated that EPF has already been made available but other dues have been withheld due to his own reasons. 5. Rejoinder affidavit is filed, wherein petitioner would state inter alia that the work was conducted manually and where there was necessity to undertake the work to JCB the same was done and the information to that effect was given to the department. The joint inspection report dated 27.11.2015 does not bear the participation of the petitioner, therefore, cannot be relied upon. The joint inspection can be made within seven days from the date of ravanna in other species and within 15 days in the matter of Eucalyptus from the date of ravanna issued by the Logging Section. The joint inspection in this matter was made after more than seven months of the date of ravanna. 6. The work was supervised and inspected from time to time by the Divisional Logging Manager and Regional Manager and at no point of time, before completion of work, they have pointed out any shortcoming or illegality in the work conducted by the petitioner. They have not taken any step for seven months and inspection was conducted only in November, 2015. 7. Heard Mr. They have not taken any step for seven months and inspection was conducted only in November, 2015. 7. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Virendra Kaparwan, learned counsel for the respondents. 8. In the nature of the dispute, which is raised, we would think that it is not possible for us to decide this issue. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is prepared to go and clarify the matter before respondent no. 4. 10. The writ petition is disposed of with the following direction: Petitioner would be present before respondent no. 4 at 11:00 AM on 1st December, 2016. Respondent no. 4, after affording opportunity to the petitioner to clarify the matter, will take final decision in the matter within a period of two weeks, after passing a reasoned order. The amount due to the petitioner will be paid on the basis of the decision as directed.