IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16244 of 2008 Kanta Rani @ Kanta Sharma, Wife of Darshanlal Sharma, Resident of Village – 57/2 Shanti Nagar, Karnal Haryana District – Saharsa. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Director, Panchayati Raj Bihar Patna. 3. The Zila Parishad Saharsa, through Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer Zila Parishad, Saharsa. 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer Zila Parishad Saharsa. 5. District Provident Fund Officer Saharsa District Saharsa. -------- Respondents ---------------------------------- 2 05.12.2011 Heard Sri Sharda Nand Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Birendra Kumar, learned A.C. to Standing Counsel No. 12, who appears on behalf of Respondent No. 1, 2 & 5 and Sri Amitesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 3 & 4. In the present writ petition the petitioner has basically claimed for interest on delayed payment of retiral dues of her husband. The husband of the petitioner had retired in the year 2000 from Zila Parishad, Saharsa and subsequently he died in the year 2005. Even after death of husband of the petitioner as per averment made in the counter affidavit some amount was paid to the petitioner on 31.07.2006 and finally payment in respect of death- cum-retiral dues of her husband was made to the petitioner vide Annexure – A to the counter affidavit. Annexure – A indicates that an amount of Rs. 2,12,294/- was received by the petitioner. In the counter affidavit the Respondent / Zila Parishad, has further indicated that since the petitioner was residing out of State, earlier payment could not be made and telephonically she was also 2 informed to get the amount and finally payment has been made. The counter affidavit was filed in the year 2009. However, no rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed. In absence of any specific pleading it would be difficult for this court to adjudicate on issue particularly the issue of interest on delayed payment. Accordingly, I do not find any ground to exercise writ jurisdiction in favour of the writ petitioner. The petition stands dismissed. Praful ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)