IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.867 of 2008 SHARDA DEVI WIFE OF LATE PREMCHAND UPADHYAY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHANSOIN, P.S. DHANSOIN, DISTRICT- BUXAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DIRECTOR-IN-CHIEF, HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA 3. CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, BUXAR-CUM-ARA, DISTRICT- BUXAR ----------- 2 29.04.2010 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The grievances of the petitioner is that her husband was also appointed along with the five persons as mentioned in the enquiry report which was carried out pursuant to the order dated 26.06.2006 in L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003 as contained in Annexure-11. It is submitted that in the enquiry similar observations and reports were made in respect of all such persons including the husband of the petitioner and on basis of such enquiry all persons were regularized in service as per the notification dated 20th September, 2007 as contained in Annexure-10, however before the said notification could be issued the husband of the petitioner died on 17.06.2007 with the result in the aforesaid notification the name of the husband of the petitioner could not find place although there was no difference either in the matter of appointment or with regard to their claim for regularization. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the husband of the petitioner died before the - 2 - notification as contained in Annexure-10 could be issued, however considering the services rendered by the husband of the petitioner after his appointment along with those five persons as contained Annexure-11 the State is obliged to extend the admissible monetary benefit. Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, learned Government Advocate No. II appearing for the State submits that the husband of the petitioner had died and as such no further action could had been taken in respect of the husband of the petitioner before the issuance of notification as contained in Annexure-10, however the grievances of the petitioner as raised in this writ application, if permissible under the rules, shall be considered and the admissible benefits, if any, shall be extended to the petitioner as per law. 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.3. In such view of the matter, in case such representation stating details of unpaid claims is filed by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today along with the certified copy of the present order as also - 3 - the copy of the relevant documents, if any, in support of the claim, the grievances of the petitioner raised in the representation shall 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 could be settled without delay and upon consideration the admitted dues found payable could also be paid. However, upon consideration if any of the claims or part of the claim is found not admissible the same shall be disposed of by a reasoned order which 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.)