IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3602 of 2008 DEONATH JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.3838 of 2008 ANAND CHANDRA JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR &ORS with CWJC No.4072 of 2008 VINDHYACHAL PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4073 of 2008 BASHISHTHA NARAIN CHATURVEDI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4084 of 2008 RAJENDRA TRIPATHI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4099 of 2008 RAMPRAVESH BHARTI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4101 of 2008 BALDEO HARIJAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4115 of 2008 BUDHESHWAR RAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4117 of 2008 LALDEO HARIJAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4118 of 2008 SHALIGRAM CHATURVEDI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4120 of 2008 RAM TAPSHAYA PARVAT Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4126 of 2008 LAKHRAJ RAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4128 of 2008 2 KHEDAN RAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4279 of 2008 SHIV SHANKAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4280 of 2008 RAMAJEE BHATT Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4301 of 2008 JIUT RAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4428 of 2008 PHULNATH HARIJAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4445 of 2008 KUSUMA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4501 of 2008 BRAJDEO TIWARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4528 of 2008 BUDHDEO RAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4532 of 2008 PARMA NAND PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4663 of 2008 GORAKH NATH PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4868 of 2008 ISHWAR PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.5075 of 2008 MOTI LAL PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 02. 20.05.2010 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in the name of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 3602 of 2008 in course of the day. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State as also the Accountant General. All the writ applications are heard individually and related to common issue with regard to their payment of retiral dues, as such, they are being disposed of by this common order. Submission is that despite requesting the authorities by filing a representation, the grievances of the petitioner have remained unconsidered/unpaid till date. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents – State submits that in case petitioners file separate representation stating the details of their claims, the same would be considered as per law at the earliest In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for expeditious disposal of their claims, petitioners propose to file separate representations before the Concerned Authority enclosing the copy of the relevant documents if any, in support of such claim along with 4 certified copy of the present order within a period of eight weeks from today. In case such representations are filed, the concerned authority shall consider the claims raised by the petitioners in their representation in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months on receipt of such representation so that the pending claims of the petitioners could be settled with interest permissible under the rules. However, if any of the claims or part of the claims, upon consideration are found not admissible, the same shall be communicated to the petitioners with the reasons thereof. All the above writ applications are disposed of with the above observations/directions. Jagdish ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J)