IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11146 of 2010 SUDAMA DUBEY S/O LATE RAMNATH DUBEY R/O VILL.- MANIPUR, P.O.- DOIYAN, VIA- KOCHAS, DISTT.- ROHTAS, SASARAM Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE REGIONAL DIRETOR ANIMAL HUSBANDRAY DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL RANGE, VERTINARY COLLEGE, PATNA ----------- 2 20.07.2010 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The grievance of the petitioner is that upon his superannuation as Assistant Director, Statistics, Central Range, Animal Husbandry Department under the respondent no.2, the pension has not been fixed correctly. It is submitted that his monthly pension was required to be fixed @ Rs. 10,500/- instead of Rs. 8,100/- as has been fixed by the department. It is further submitted that the petitioner was waiting for posting between the period 01.02.1999 to 03.05.2000 and during the said period the petitioner was not allowed/given opportunity to appear in the departmental examination in order to receive higher increments in his salary with the result upon retirement the petitioner started receiving lesser amount of pension. It is further contended that the petitioner was not at fault at any point of time for not appearing in the departmental examination as he was not given opportunity to appear in the examination which would be evident on perusal of the letter of the department itself as contained in memo no. 3606 dated 2nd July, 2001 wherein it has been observed that the petitioner remained waiting for posting between the aforesaid period for which there was no fault on his part. It is further contended that in the above circumstances petitioner was required to be allowed exemption from appearing in such departmental examination since the petitioner was waiting for positing and that having not done the petitioner is continuously suffering by receiving lesser amount of pension. On perusal of the letter contained in memo no. 4429 dated 4th November, 2006 (Annexure-2) it would appear that the department ought to have exempted the petitioner from appearing in such examination so that he could not have been put to loss for no fault of him. The benefit of exemption having not extended to him, in the given circumstances, the petitioner is suffering serious loss. The aforesaid grievances of the petitioner have not been redressed even though the petitioner represented the matter as per Annexure-3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State on the other hand submits that the representation filed by the petitioner did not contain the relevant details so as to enable consideration of the claims of the petitioner. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for expeditious disposal of the pending claims as highlighted in this writ application, petitioner proposes to file a representation before the respondent no.2. In such view of the matter, in case such representation stating details of unpaid claims is filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today along with the certified copy of the present order as also the copy of the relevant documents, if any, in support of the claim, the representation of the petitioner shall be considered and disposed of by a reasoned order in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation. Upon consideration in case the representation of the petitioner finds favour, necessary further order shall simultaneously be issued so that the admitted dues found payable may also be paid to the petitioner along with interest permissible under the rules. The order passed on such representation shall be communicated to the petitioner by post under registered cover. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Manish/- (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)