JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “1. For direction to the Respondents to make payment of retiral dues such as Gratuity, Leave Encashment, GPF, Group Insurance as well as other legally admitted dues fixing final pension of the petitioner with penal interest @ 18% per annum apart from statutory interest from the date of retirement till the date of respective payment as per the settled principles of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Vijay L. Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2001) 9 SCC 687 (Annexure-10) and in case of D.D. Tewari through LRs. vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. 2014 (6) Supreme 382 (Annexure-11). For quashing of the Letter No. 341 dated 24.01.2018 issued by the Resp. No. 3, by which the petitioner joined in Welfare Department Branch Secretariat, Ranchi on 06.11.1981 and working on the said post till retirement on 31.01.2018 having unblemished service record of more than 36 years in Welfare Department after allocation of Jharkhand Cadre during bifurcation of State, has been shown relieved for joining in the office of Settlement Officer, Ranchi in most illegal and arbitrary manner.” 3. During the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner had filed one interlocutory application being I.A. No. 6954 of 2022 for challenging the order contained in memo No. 341 dated 24.01.2018 whereby the petitioner was repatriated from the Welfare Department to the office of Assistant Settlement Officer, (Headquarter), Ranchi. The same was allowed vide order dated 10.10.2022. 4. It has been stated in I.A. No. 6954 of 2022 that aforesaid letter dated 24.01.2018 was never served upon the petitioner or the office of Assistant Settlement Officer, (Headquarter), Ranchi, prior to the retirement of the petitioner on 31.01.2018 and therefore the petitioner ultimately retired from the Welfare Department. An affidavit dated 29.09.2022 has been filed by the respondents mentioning therein that there is no specific record available in the department to show that the aforesaid letter dated 24.01.2018 was received by the petitioner or by the office of Assistant Settlement Officer, (Headquarter), Ranchi. 5. An affidavit dated 29.09.2022 has been filed by the respondents mentioning therein that there is no specific record available in the department to show that the aforesaid letter dated 24.01.2018 was received by the petitioner or by the office of Assistant Settlement Officer, (Headquarter), Ranchi. 5. Thus, it is not in dispute that though the letter of repatriation dated 24.01.2018 was issued but the same was neither served upon the petitioner, nor served with the Assistant Settlement Officer, (Headquarter), Ranchi and consequently the petitioner did not join the office of Assistant Settlement Officer, (Headquarter), Ranchi and ultimately retired on 31.01.2018 and ultimately retired while working in the Welfare Department. 6. It is not in dispute and clearly mentioned in the counter affidavit also that initially the petitioner was appointed temporarily as ‘Draft man’ in the office of Settlement Officer, Ranchi vide order dated 01.06.1977 and was granted promotion to the post of ‘Moharrir’ w.e.f. 01.11.1978 where he worked till 05.11.1981. Thereafter, vide order dated 22.10.1981, issued under the signature of the then Joint Secretary to the Government, Department of Welfare, Government of Bihar, the petitioner was appointed by deputation on the post of Assistant with a condition that on account of posting of another assistant in his place by the Welfare Department, Patna, on the said post, the services of the petitioner shall be returned to the office of the Settlement Officer, Ranchi. It was also mentioned in the said letter that in case no such posting is made, taking into account the performance of the petitioner, consideration to include the name of the petitioner in the cadre of Assistant shall be made. In such circumstances, a request to the Departmental Secretary was made vide memo No. 149 dated 27.05.1999. However, no decision to that effect was received. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that subsequently on account of reorganization of the State of Bihar, the services of the petitioner was allocated to the successor State of Jharkhand in terms of which, the petitioner joined on the post of Assistant in Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand w.e.f. 14.11.2000. His joining was accepted vide memo No. 45 dated 11.01.2001. His joining was accepted vide memo No. 45 dated 11.01.2001. However, no order of confirmation of the appointment of the petitioner on the said post in the Welfare Department was issued by the competent Authority and the petitioner continued on the said post on deputation and ultimately attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2018. However, it has also been mentioned in the counter affidavit that prior to attaining his age of superannuation, memo No. 341 dated 24.01.2018 was issued repatriating the petitioner to the office of Assistant Settlement Officer, (Headquarter), Ranchi. It has come on record that the memo No. 341 dated 24.01.2018 was neither served upon the petitioner nor in the office of the Assistant Settlement Officer, (Headquarter), Ranchi prior to the date of retirement of the petitioner, although the same was served upon other departments. 7. Thus, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was working on deputation in the welfare department, originally in the State of Bihar and subsequently in the State of Jharkhand and ultimately attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2018 while working in the Welfare Department. Though letter of repatriation dated 24.01.2018 was issued but the same was neither served upon the petitioner nor served upon the Assistant Settlement Officer, (Headquarter), Ranchi. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner was never absorbed in the Welfare Department. 8. As per the supplementary counter affidavit filed in the present case, it has been specifically stated that vide memo No. 332 dated 04.02.2020, the original service record of the petitioner was also sent to the office of Assistant Settlement Officer, (Headquarter), Ranchi for taking necessary action which was also received in the office of Assistant Settlement Officer, (Headquarter), Ranchi. 9. In view of the specific statement made in the supplementary counter affidavit, this court is of the considered view that there is no impediment in processing the claim of the petitioner for post-retirement benefits for which the petitioner is required to approach before the Assistant Settlement Officer, (Headquarter), Ranchi. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of enabling the petitioner to approach the office of Assistant Settlement Officer, (Headquarter), Ranchi, along with the writ records and a detailed representation with respect to his surviving claim of postretirement benefits within a period of 15 days from today. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of enabling the petitioner to approach the office of Assistant Settlement Officer, (Headquarter), Ranchi, along with the writ records and a detailed representation with respect to his surviving claim of postretirement benefits within a period of 15 days from today. Upon filing of such representation, the aforesaid authority shall do the needful by passing a reasoned order with regard to the claim of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of representation. The said authority is also directed to take appropriate steps so that the admissible post-retirement benefits be also paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of passing of the reasoned order. 11. If the admissible dues of the petitioner are not paid within the aforesaid time line, the petitioner would be entitled for interest @ 12% on admissible post-retirement benefits from the date of his retirement till the date of payment. 12. So far as challenge to memo No. 341 dated 24.01.2018, whereby the petitioner has been repatriated is concerned, the fact remains that the same was issued by the welfare department but was not served upon the petitioner or upon the office of Assistant Settlement Officer, (Headquarter), Ranchi prior to his date of retirement which is coupled with the admitted fact that the services of the petitioner was never absorbed with the Welfare Department. No further order is required to be passed with respect to the order dated 24.01.2018 in view of the fact that now the Assistant Settlement Officer, (Headquarter), Ranchi is required to take care and process the claim of post retiral benefits of the petitioner. 13. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 14. Pending I.A. if any, is closed.