1. The petitioner has preferred this petition against the inaction ofi the part of respondent in not disbursing to him the entire retrial dues including the amount of General Provident Funds (GPF) and Gratuity.

2. Shri Amit Lahoti, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that although during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the pension has been released to the petitioner but his gratuity and GPF amount have yet not been released on the ground stated in the Return of the State Government that an amount of Rs.2,28,294/- was lying as 'Miscellaneous Advance" given to the petitioner in relation to the pending Projects and since the petitioner did not deposit the same before his retirement, his Gratuity and GPF has been withheld. Shri Lahoti, further submits that advancement of Miscellaneous Advance amount is a common practice prevalent in the Deprtment and Engineers are authorised to utilize this amount in relation to on going Projects of the Department and as such it could not be treated to be one such amount, which was utilized/mis-utilized or misappropriated by the employee/petitioner for his own individual benefit and based upon such an interpretation the amount of GPF and gratuity could have not been withheld by the Department.

3. Shri Lahoti submits that in an identical case being WP No. 742/2006 (S) (Khanivalal Gupta v. State of M.P) the State Government has taken a similar stand but has given a different interpretation to the advancement of "Miscellaneous Advance" in the following words:

"(5.15) That facts mentioned in para 5.15 of the petition as stated by the petitioner it is submitted that Misc. Advance placed in the name of petitioner has to be cleared ultimately on availability of funds and allotment from the Government but the same will remain continue in the name of the petitioner as Misc. Advance so long as the fund and allotment is made available by the Government."

4. Shri Lahoti submits that while examining the aforesaid matter in W.P. No. 742/2006 (S), this Court had examined the facts and law and had specifically analyzed the meaning and scope of the term "Miscellaneous Advance" and had found that it is a technical term which provide for advancement of Funds to the Competent Authority for completion of pending Projects, as per the practice of the Department, which could not be described to be any kind of misappropriation of Funds. Relevant paragraph (6) of the Order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 742/2006 (S) on Date 30.8.2007 is quoted herein below:

(6) "From the facts of the case it is clear that the petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer at J aura he had sanctioned payment of Rs. 70 Lacs to a private contractor and the amount was also paid to him. However because there was no allotment from the Government, hence it was shown as miscellaneous advance against the petitioner. The respondent themselves in para 5.15 of the return have stated that as soon as the allotment be made by the Government the amount which was shown against the petitioner be cleared of. It is clear from the fact that it is a technical objection apparently there is no misappropriation of any fund by the petitioner neither any enquiry is pending against him. It is not a case that an amount has to be recovered from the petitioner on account of pecuniary loss. In such circumstances the petitioner is entitled for no objection certificate after his retirement for the purpose of clearance of retrial dues and pension."

5. Shri Lahoti, submits that when the petitioner has not misappropriated any amount of Rs. 2,28,294/- was simply found to be lying as "Miscellaneous Advance" which was allegedly given to the petitioner, during tenure of his service, the same was required to be adjusted in accounts, soon upon receiving relevant sanction/grant from the State Government. He submits that only on the strength of a letter written by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Bhind, the amount of gratuity and GPF were withheld, w