IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3315 of 2010 1. BALESHWAR THAKUR S/O LATE MAHAVIR THAKUR R/O VILLAGE & P.O.- ULAO, P.S.- BEGUSARAI (MUFASSIL), O.P. SINGHAUL, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI 2. MD. HASSAN S/O LATE ISMAIL R/O VILL.- LALPUR, P.S.- MATIHANI, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI ---Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE SECRETARY, FOOD & CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 6. THE JOINT SECRETARY, FOOD & CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 7. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., SONE BHAWAN, BIRCHAND PATEL MARG, PATNA. 8. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BEGUSARAI. 9. THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, BEGUSARAI. 10. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA. 11. THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA. ---Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh,Advocate For the S t at e : Mr A. Karim, J.C. to S.C. 5 For the Corporation: Mr. R.S. Pradhan, Sr.Advocate with Mr. A.N. Rai, Advocate For the Accountant General : Mr Sanjay Kumar, Advocate ------ 3. 10.3.2010 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondent-State and the respondent-Corporation as also the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. The case of the petitioners is that initially the petitioners were serving with the respondent-Corporation. However, the petitioners were appointed on the basis of the absorption as per the order issued by the State Government vide letter contained in Memo 2 no.1488 dated 31st of March, 1997 under the District Consumer Form, Begusarai. The petitioners retired from the service of the said Forum. The grievance of the petitioners is that while calculating the pensionary benefits, the respondent-State did not take into consideration the period rendered by them while serving under the State Food Corporation. It is submitted that the State Government issued letter no.6579 dated 11.12.2008, as contained in Annexure 6, wherein while calculating the gratuity, period rendered by the concerned employee in the State Food Corporation was directed to be taken into consideration. It is submitted that the aforesaid decision was taken considering the decision of this Court passed on 31st of August, 2000 in C.W.J.C. No.12048 of 1998, as contained in Annexure 6 series. Accordingly, the submission is that the respondent-State is obliged in law to consider the case of the petitioners in calculating the services rendered in the State Food Corporation for the purpose of pension as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that for expeditious disposal of the grievances of the petitioners as highlighted in this writ application, the petitioners propose to file a detailed representation before the Secretary, Food & Consumer Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Patna (respondent no.5) as also enclosing the copy of the relevant documents in support of such claim along with the certified copy of the present order. In case such a representation is filed within a period of six weeks, respondent 3 no.5 shall consider the case of the petitioners and dispose it of by a reasoned order, in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months of receipt of such representation so that the grievances of the petitioners raised in their representation could be settled at the earliest. It goes without saying that in case the representation of the petitioners finds favour, immediate necessary follow-up action shall be taken with regard to the payment of pension and other retiral dues in the light of the order to be passed on such representation. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)