JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for directing the respondents to give the benefits of MACP to the petitioner with interest which is due since, 2008. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. Petitioner was appointed as BCG Technician in the year 1978 in District T.B. Centre, Deoghar by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Santhal Pargana, Dumka. Thereafter, the petitioner retired from his service on 30.09.2014. Though the petitioner retired but he was not granted the benefits of MACP and as such, he represented before the respondent-authorities but the same was not considered and as such, he moved before this Hon’ble Court for redressal of his grievances. 4. Ms. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for the benefits of MACP from 2008 but the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily not considered the case of the petitioner. 5. Learned JC to GP-V appearing for the respondent submits that already State has considered the grievance of the petitioner and the entire amount of Rs.1,29,345/-, for which the petitioner is found entitled will be paid within a week and the same will be deposited in the account of the petitioner. So far revision of pension and gratuity is concerned, the same has also been referred to the Accountant General for considering the same. 6. In view of the fair submissions of the learned counsel for the State, this Court is of the considered view that as the grievances of the petitioner has already been considered and the amount is going to be paid within a week, the writ petition stand disposed. 7. It has been pointed out that vide order dated 18.04.2017, as the grievances of the petitioner was not considered, an order was passed staying the salary of the respondent No. 6 till the disbursement of the legally due amount of the petitioner by the respondents. As the amounts have already been disbursed and the grievances of the petitioner has been redressed, there is no need to withhold the salary of the respondent No. 6 and as such, in view of the fair submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, respondent No. 6 is allowed to withdraw his salary in accordance with law. 8. As the amounts have already been disbursed and the grievances of the petitioner has been redressed, there is no need to withhold the salary of the respondent No. 6 and as such, in view of the fair submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, respondent No. 6 is allowed to withdraw his salary in accordance with law. 8. Needless to say that as the amount is due since 2008, respondents shall also consider for making payment of interest on the said due amount in accordance with law. 9. Resultantly, the writ petition stands disposed.