IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10323 of 2010 MASUD ALAM S/O LATE MANSOOR ALI R/O VILL.- PATANI NARAYANPUR, P.O.- R.N.VAULIYA, P.S.- MANIHARI, DISTT.- KATIHAR ---Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER CUM PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., SECONDARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, KATIHAR. 5. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KATIHAR. 6. THE TREASURY OFFICER, KATIHAR. 7. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL BIHAR, VEER CHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA. ---Respondents ----------- 2. 6.7.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Accountant General. The prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the office order bearing Memo No.340 dated 20th of February, 2010, as contained in Annexure 11, whereby his claim for family pension has been found not admissible and the same was, accordingly, rejected. In course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner on perusal of the impugned order is not in a position to refute the decision with regard to the admissibility of the family pension of the petitioner as the husband of the petitioner died on 22nd of August, 1973 whereas the scheme for payment of family pension came into effect with effect from 1st of April, 1976. 2 In the above circumstances, I do not find any error in the impugned order (Annexure 11) declining the claim for family pension. Leaned counsel, however, submits that besides the claim for family pension, the petitioner has also claimed with regard to the payment of arrears of pension, gratuity, leave encashment and G.P.F. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that pursuant to the order dated 26.9.2009 of this Court, contained in Annexure 9, the petitioner although submitted his representation before the District Superintendent of Education, Katihar, however, the representation did not disclose any other claim except the pensionary benefits. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be given another opportunity to file a fresh representation stating distinctly the details of his unpaid claims, which is payable on the death of his father while working as an Assistant Teacher in the Middle School, Rohana in Katihar district. Considering the submissions of the parties, the petitioner is permitted to file a fresh representation before the District Superintendent of Education, Katihar (respondent no.4) stating distinctly the details of his 3 unpaid claims as also the copy of the relevant documents in support of such claim along with the certified copy of the present order. In case such a representation is filed within a period of four weeks, the same be considered in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months on receipt of such representation, so that the claim may be settled at the earliest and the admitted dues may also be paid with interest permissible under the rules. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)