JUDGMENT Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner who superannuated from the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub Division, Loyabad on 31.12.2012, has approached this Court inter-alia for multiple relief (s). i. Refund of amount of 75,350/- said to be illegally recovered as temporary advance paid to him. ii. For the benefits of MACP as 131 similarly situated persons have been granted the same. iii. For appropriate decision in the Inquiry Proceeding pending against him at the verge of retirement. iv. Payment of statutory interest on GPF. v. For sanction of full pension with effect from 01.01.2013 as only provisional pension is being paid @90% vi. For release of one increment due on 01.07.2012. vii. For interest on arrears of salary for certain period from 01.06.2011 to 31.12.2012 amounting to Rs. 8,07,701/-. Petitioner has also claimed interest over all unpaid amounts. 3. The Respondent Nigam filed counter affidavit on 23.07.2015, to which rejoinder was also filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, another supplementary affidavit was filed by the Respondent on 01.09.2016 and lastly, supplementary counter affidavit was filed on 25.09.2018, para-4 thereof depicts admissible dues paid to him, which are as under: i. GPF amounting to Rs. 9,25,981.00 vide no. 398414 dated 26.12.2013 ii. Gratuity amounting to Rs. 10,00,000.00 vide cheque no. 756335 dated 10.03.2017 iii. Pension Arrear amounting Rs. 2,95,171.00 vide cheque no. 417928 dated 19.05.2017 iv. The petitioner was not the member of group saving therefore he is not entitled of G.S.S 2. v. Leave encashment to the petitioner has not been paid as yet and it has to be sanctioned and paid from the office of the GM-Cum-CE, Electric Supply Area, Dhanbad. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that three grievances is still subsisting even now, one relating to refund of Rs. 75,350/- withheld as against temporary advance made to him earlier. Petitioner contends that he had submitted all necessary vouchers, etc. in the office, but the matter got stuck at the level of Accountant of the Nigam, second relating to interest on GPF amount which was paid after considerable delay of one year since his retirement i.e. 26.12.2013 and the third relating to release of one increment which has been withheld. 5. Counsel for the Respondent Nigam has specific answer to each of these claims. 5. Counsel for the Respondent Nigam has specific answer to each of these claims. He submits that if the petitioner submits all vouchers with due explanation of the expenditure undertaken towards the temporary advance before the competent authority, his claim of refund can be processed and finalized within a time period. He further submits that papers relating to release of provident fund were submitted after seven months in July 2013 by the petitioner, where-after his claim of provident fund was processed and paid in December 2013. He points out that Inquiry Report was submitted in respect of pending Departmental Inquiry before the competent authority, who would take a decision thereupon and depending upon that decision, increment if admissible, would be released to him. 6. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties in the light of the relevant material facts borne on record and noted above. Majority of the grievances of the petitioner are apparently redressed, as per his own admission. For rest of his grievance relating to release of an amount of Rs. 75,350/-, he should make a representation before the competent authority / Respondent No. 5 through the channel of Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Chatra (Respondent No. 6). Such representation together with all supporting documents be examined by the competent authority / Respondent No. 5 on its receipt in accordance with law and if the claim is found admissible, the amount withheld be released thereafter in accordance with law. If it is rejected, a reasoned order be passed and communicated to the petitioner. Claim for statutory interest on provident fund amount can also be redressed by the competent authority / Respondent No. 5 in a similar manner on receipt of joint representation being made by him with his grievance as it appears that even after submission of his provident fund papers in July 2013, release of provident fund amount was made in December 2013. However, if interest thereupon is found admissible, the same be release. If it is rejected, reasoned order be communicated to him. The competent authority / Respondent No. 5 would also take a decision on the pending proceeding against the petitioner and as per its decision, if petitioner is exonerated, admissible increment be released thereafter within a suitable period. However, if interest thereupon is found admissible, the same be release. If it is rejected, reasoned order be communicated to him. The competent authority / Respondent No. 5 would also take a decision on the pending proceeding against the petitioner and as per its decision, if petitioner is exonerated, admissible increment be released thereafter within a suitable period. Let all such decisions, as indicated above, be taken by the competent authority within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of representation by the petitioner along with the copy of this order. However, let it be made clear that this Court has not made any final comments on the merits of the claim of the petitioner which are determinable by the competent authority / Respondent No. 5. 7. Writ petition stands disposed of.