IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.685 of 2009 Nisha Gupta . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 2/ 27/06/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The writ petition was filed nearly two and a half years ago, but the respondents have not considered it their duty to file a counter affidavit, much less assist the Court in quick and timely dispensation of justice. No useful purpose is going to be served by keeping the present application pending. The claim of the petitioner, an Angan Bari Sevika, is for arrears of salary from March-2008 as also the arrears of the “Poshahar Amount from December, 2008. She has represented before the District Programme Officer on 19.12.2008 vide Annexure-7. If that be so, it is disappointing to notice that not only do the respondents not consider it their duty to consider her representation, but also do not consider it their duty to answer the claims even before this Court. Let the District Programme Officer consider the grievances of the petitioner, grant her a personal/representative hearing and dispose off the matter by a reasoned and speaking order disclosing full 2 application of mind and transparency of reasons within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order. Appeal shall lie to the aggrieved before the District Magistrate concerned. The application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)