IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16966 of 2007 Kosmi, Wife of Dharmendra, Resident of Mohalla: Telbigha, Dom Toli, P.S. – Kotwarli, District : Gaya… …….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Old Secretariate, Patna. 2. The Secretary to the Govt., Urban Development Deptt., Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary to the Govt. Finance Deptt. Bihar, Patna. 4. The Commissioner, Gaya Municipal Corporation, Gaya. 5. The Finance Officer, Gaya Municipal Corporation, Gaya. 6. The Accounts Officer, Gaya Municipal Corporation, Gaya. …………. Respondents ---------------------------------- 2 23/8/2011 Heard Sri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dinbandhu Singh, learned Government Advocate No. 9, who appears on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State of Bihar and Sri R.K. Priyadarshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 4 to 6/Gaya Municipal Corporation, Gaya. The petitioner’s mother died on 23/5/2006 while functioning as ‘Cleaner’ in Gaya Municipal Corporation, Gaya. The petitioner has prayed for directing the Respondents to make payment of death-cum-retiral dues. The writ petition was filed in the year 2007. However, no counter affidavit has been filed till date. Sri R.K. Priyadarshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 4 to 6, on instruction submits that grievances of the petitioner have already been redressed. He further submits that cheque for claimed amount has already been issued by the Gaya Municipal Corporation, Gaya, in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to dispute the statement made by learned counsel for the 2 Respondent/Gaya Municipal Corporation, Gaya. In view of stand taken by learned counsel for Gaya Municipal Corporation, Gaya, there is no need to keep the matter pending. The writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach Respondent No. 4/Commissioner, Gaya Municipal Corporation, Gaya, within a period of six weeks from today, if any grievance as claimed in the writ petition still exists by filing a detailed representation. If such representation is filed, Respondent No. 4 is required to examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of filing of such representation. If Respondent No. 4 considers the claim of the petitioner as genuine, he is required to pass order for payment within aforesaid time. Even in case of refusal, Respondent No. 4 is required to pass a speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner within four months from the date of filing of such representation. It goes without saying that petitioner may raise his claim for interest on delayed payment. Praful ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)