IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18624 of 2010 1. KRISHNA PRASAD SON OF LATE RADHA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GAJRARH, GORAKSHANI, P.S.- SASARAM, DISTRICT- SASARAM. 2. VISHWANATH PRASAD, SON OF LATE ISHARI RAJBHAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DEVKALI, P.S.- MOHANIA, DISTRICT- KAIMUR AT BHABHUA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD, SUPPLY & COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, BIHAR PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, CONSUMER PROTECTION DIRECTORATE, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ROHTAS AT SASARAM 6. MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, PATNA. 7. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- 3 26.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent State as also Mr. R.S. Pradhan learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that upon his superannuation on 31st of August 2010, from the office of the respondent no. 4. The pension is not properly calculated. It is submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed in the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sasaram while serving as such the petitioner and similarly such other employees were sent to the Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation. The petitioner served in the Corporation till the year 1997, later the service of the petitioner was sent to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sasaram. The grievance of the petitioner is that while calculating the pension of the petitioner the period spent by him while working under the Corporation (respondent no. 6) have not been taken into consideration, with the result the petitioner is not receiving the full and correct pension. It is further submitted that this Court in the similar writ applications by similarly situated employees has directed to the effect that the pensionable period of service be counted taken into consideration the period spent by the concerned employee in the Corporation, accordingly the necessary orders were issued counting the period of service rendered in the corporation whereas in the case of the petitioner same is not being done despite request. Learned counsel for the State submits that the grievances of the petitioner would be considered at the earliest as per law. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for expeditious disposal of the unpaid claims petitioner although has represented earlier, however, proposes to file a fresh representation before the respondent no. 2 with a copy to respondent nos.4, 6 and 7. In view of the above, in case such representation is filed within a period of four weeks stating details of his unpaid claims as also the copy of the relevant documents in support of such claims along with the certified copy of the present order, the grievances of the petitioner be considered in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation, so that the grievances of the petitioner may be settled and the admitted dues, if any, may also be paid with interest permissible under the rules. Upon consideration, in case such representation is accepted the necessary sanction for payment of pensionary benefits be issued with delay. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Amrendra/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)