IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2194 of 2006 RABI BHUSHAN PRASAD Versus THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND ORS. --------- 2. 18.2.2010. Mr. Naresh Dass learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh learned counsel for the respondents are present. The petitioner who superannuated from the services of the Indian Tobacco Company Limited has filed the writ petition challenging the fixation of his pension by the authorities of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 framed under the Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that whereas according to the stipulations made under the Scheme, the petitioner was entitled to a sum of Rs.1393/- per month by way of pension but the pension was fixed at a lower rate amounting to Rs.1158/- P.M. by the authorities of the Provident Fund. It is in these circumstances that the writ petition came to be filed. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent 2 organization, on instructions, submits that the grievances of the petitioner has been redressed and refixation has been carried out but learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the position. The writ petition is thus disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to raise the issue before the respondent no.1 the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar, Patna together with supportive details in support of his claim for higher pension and which shall be examined and disposed of by respondent no.1 in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation. The writ petition stands disposed of. ahk (Jyoti Saran,J.)