JUDGMENT : 1. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondents submits that he is not pressing the instant interlocutory as the same has become infructuous. 2. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, I.A. No. 4766 of 2019 stands dismissed as not pressed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to complete the liquidation process initiated vide order dated 18.07.2005 and to release the arrears of salary in favour of the petitioners for the period they have not been paid, though the husband of the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 remained employed under the respondents, alongwith the amount of leave encashment and gratuity in favour of the petitioners in view of order passed in LPA No. 264 of 2013 (Benkteshwar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) 5. At the very outset, Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that in view of the directions of this Hon’ble Court, the respondents have released 50 % of the claim amount i.e. sum of Rs.2,55,014 and Rs. 2,26,421/- respectively to the petitioners vide Cheque No. 899262 and 899263 respectively dated 21.06.2019 and averment to that extent is made in para 14 of the counter-affidavit. Learned counsel further submits that though the Liquidation Proceeding is still going on and same has not been completed and after conclusion of the said proceeding, rest of the claimed amount i.e. 50 % shall be paid to the petitioners, in accordance with law. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Saurabh Shekhar does not object to the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel submits similarly situated person had preferred L.P.A. No. 264 of 2013 and C.M.P. No. 187 of 2016, which were also disposed of and as such, this writ petition may be disposed of in similar terms and similar benefits may be extended to the present petitioners also. 7. Learned counsel submits similarly situated person had preferred L.P.A. No. 264 of 2013 and C.M.P. No. 187 of 2016, which were also disposed of and as such, this writ petition may be disposed of in similar terms and similar benefits may be extended to the present petitioners also. 7. In view of fair submission of learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that similar issues have already been decided by this Court, this writ petition is also being disposed of in terms of orders passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in LPA No.264 of 2013 and CMP No.187 of 2016, whereby it has been directed to conclude the Liquidation Proceedings and to clear the dues of the ex-employee of the bank at the earliest. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file a fresh representation mentioning therein that they have not received 50 % of the due amount along with a copy of this order before the respondents, within a period of four weeks’ from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation, the respondents are directed to release rest of the amount of the petitioners after conclusion of Liquidation Proceeding in view of order passed in LPA No. 264 of 2013 and CMP. No. 187 of 2016. 8. It goes without saying that if petitioners are not found entitled for the same or similar relief, reasoned order be passed and communicated to them, within a further period of four weeks. 9. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions.