IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8996 of 2010 SUSHILA DEVI, wife of Late Nageshwar Mandal, resident of Village Harhaiya, Post-Atalkha, P.S. Basnahi, District Saharsa. ---Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. District Superintendent of Education, Supaul. 3. District Superintendent of Education, Saharsa. 4. Collector, Supaul. 5. Collector, Saharsa. 6. Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. 7. Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 8. Finance Commissioner, Pension Cell, Bihar,Patna. 9. Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna. ---Respondents ----------- 2. 20.5.2010 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State as also the Accountant General. The husband of the petitioner retired on 31st of July, 2006. It is submitted that her husband remained under suspension for very long time. However, neither the enquiry was completed till date of his retirement nor till his death, which occurred on 12th of June, 2009. In other words, submission is that neither her husband had received nor the widow-petitioner has received the retiral/death-cum- retiral dues, including family pension. The learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the averments made in the writ application are not clear and relevant details are lacking. In the above circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner had represented her grievances by filing a representation before respondent no.2, however, 2 for expeditious disposal of the pending claims as highlighted in this writ application, proposes to file a fresh representation before the District Superintendent of Education, Supaul (respondent no.2), with a copy to the Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna (respondent no.7). In case such a representation is filed stating the details of the unpaid claims along with the requisite application for sanction of the pensionary benefits as also enclosing the copy of the relevant documents, if any, in support of such claims along with the certified copy of the present order within a period of six weeks, the grievances of the petitioner as raised in her representation 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 at the earliest and the admitted dues, if any, found payable may also be paid with interest permissible under the rules. However, upon consideration, if any of the claims or any part of the claims is found not admissible under the rules, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner with the reasons thereof. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)