JUDGMENT Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner superannuated on 29.02.2016 from the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police under JAP-IV Bokaro. He has prayed for revision in his last pay drawn in the light of 7th Pay Revision for computation of the retirement benefits and release of pension, gratuity with arrears. His leave encashment amount was also withheld. Claim for interest due to delay in payment of post retirement dues have also been made. 3. According to the respondent Department, all admissible post retirement dues have been paid except the leave encashment. 4. The pleadings on record and submission of the parties reveal that the controversy in this case is on account of punishment of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect imposed upon the petitioner vide memo no 6561 dated 29.09.2014, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. The order apparently was not given effect till the date of his retirement. There is interdepartmental correspondence between the Home Department and the Finance Department on the subject. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the stand of the Parent Department to give effect to the order of punishment from the date of cause of action i.e., 2005 as per letter no. 4564 dated 08.08.2018 is not permissible. He has placed reliance on the resolution dated 18.12.2012 issued by the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department and the judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in case of Sada Shiv Jha Vrs. the State of Jharkhand & others reported in , (2014) 1 JLJR 284 . According to petitioner, prospective operation of the punishment from the date of order of penalty is applicable to the officers in the rank of Dy.S.P., who are governed by the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. Petitioner has also preferred an appeal before the Governor, Jharkhand on 16.09.2016, which is pending consideration as per statement made at para 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this issue may not detain the disposal of the present writ petition since the appeal preferred by the petitioner is still pending and respondents have also disbursed the admissible post retirement dues except leave encashment amount, which also cannot be withheld on any such ground. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent State submits that question herein is how to give effect to the order of punishment. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent State submits that question herein is how to give effect to the order of punishment. Barring this issue respondents have released admissible dues. Learned counsel for the respondent State has not been able to show any provision under which leave encashment amount can be withhold. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no significant purpose in keeping the writ petition pending. How the order of punishment would be given effect to would also depend upon the outcome of the pending appeal. In case punishment order is upheld, Respondents are required to take into account the applicable circulars and judgment on the point on the instant issue. This Court however does not wish to express any further on this aspect. Any arrears as per revision of last pay drawn, for computation of post retirement dues, would also be depend upon the outcome of such decision. However, respondents are required to release the admissible leave encashment amount in the meantime in favour of the petitioner. 8. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner.