JUDGMENT : 1. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent by not attending the duty. However, no disciplinary action was initiated against the writ petitioner is the contention raised before this Court. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent also is not sure about the actions initiated against the writ petitioner. However, the learned counsel states that since no action was initiated against the writ petitioner, he made a representation to the second respondent on 14.8.1997 to settle his terminal and pensionary benefits on account of his retirement. 3. This Court is of the opinion that an employee who is retired from service in the absence of any disciplinary proceedings or otherwise, is entitled for the terminal and retirement benefits. But the facts, in this regard, more specifically, in respect of the disciplinary proceedings are to be verified by the competent authorities before taking any action for settling the monetary benefits. 4. However, without going into the merits of the matter, this Court is of the view that it is suffice if a direction is issued in this regard. Thus, the second respondent is directed to consider the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 14.8.1997 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petitioner is directed to enclose the copy of the representation along with the order passed in this writ petition. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.