IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17592 of 2011 Ram Keshwar Vishwakarma, Son of Late Narsinha Mistry, resident of Hawaiadda Road, Malahchak Last, P.S. Jehanabad, in the District of Jehanabad. ... ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Jehanabad. 4. The District Provident Fund Officer, Arwal. 5. The General Provident Fund Officer, Jehanabad-cum-Arwal. 6. The Block Development Officer, Arwal. 7. The Block Development Officer, Jehanabad. 8. The Accountant General, Bihar. 9. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Arwal. ... ... Respondents. ---------------------------------- 2. 12.10.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead District Magistrate- cum-Collector, Arwal as respondent no.9. Heard Shri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Neelam Prasad, learned A.C. to G.P.25, who appears on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 7/State of Bihar and Shri Kumar Priya Ranjan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.8/Accountant General. The petitioner, who retired as Panchayat Sewak from Karpi Block in the District of Arwal with effect from 31.1.2011 as mentioned in paragraph-5 of the writ petition, has prayed for directing the respondents to pay all his retiral dues. It 2 was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no retiral dues have been paid till date. It was further submitted that, for the relief sought for in the present writ petition, the petitioner has also filed representation before the newly added respondent no.9. However, no decision has been taken till date nor any payment has been made. In view of the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is being disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before respondent no.9/District Magistrate- cum-Collector, Arwal within a period of six weeks from today. If such representation is filed, respondent no.9 is required to examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of filing of such representation. If respondent no.9 considers the claim of the petitioner as genuine, he is required to pass order for clearing all the retiral dues of the petitioner within two months from the date of filing of such representation. Even in case of refusal, 3 respondent no.9 is required to pass a speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner within two months from the date of filing of such representation. The court expects that respondent no.8/Accountant General will issue authorization within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the sanction order from the State authority. It goes without saying that petitioner shall be entitled to get admissible statutory interest. With above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. N.H./ ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)