IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19535 of 2011 Deo Chandra Pathak Son Of Late Anand Pathak Resident Of Village - Nand Nagar, Police Station- Rosera, District – Samastipur. ……………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Vice-Chancellor, L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga 4. The Registrar, L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga. ………. Respondents ---------------------------------- 2 11.11.2011 Heard Sri Hemant Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vikash Kumar, learned A.C. to Advocate General, who appears on behalf of respondent no. 1 & 2 and Sri Santosh Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3 & 4 / L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga. The petitioner, who retired with effect from 31.12.2008 as ‘Lecturer- Department of Chemistry’, U.R. College, Rosera under L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga, has prayed for directing the respondents to pay arrear of pension in revised U.G.C. pay scale, gratuity, arrear due to the difference in the revised U.G.C. pay scale and earned leave for 201 days. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that for the relief sought for in the present writ petition the petitioner has also filed representation before the authority concerned. However, no decision has been taken on his representation nor aforesaid dues have been cleared. It has been admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after retirement the petitioner is getting pension but in old scale (i.e. unrevised scale). 2 In view of the facts and circumstances, the court is of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before respondent no. 4 / Registrar, L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga, within a period of six weeks from today. If such representation is filed, the respondent no. 4 is required to examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation. If the respondent no. 4 considers the claim of the petitioner as genuine, he is required to pass order for clearing the dues within aforesaid time. Even in case of refusal, the respondent no. 4 is required to pass a speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation. It goes without saying that the petitioner shall be entitled to get admissible statutory interest on delayed payment. Praful ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)