IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3839 of 2005 NAGINA DEVI, wife of late Prahalad Mandal, resident of Mohalla – Anandpuri (Brahampura), P.O. MIT Muzaffarpur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District – Muzaffarpur. ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Sultan Palace, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna. 2. The Administrator, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna. 3. The Chief Account Officer, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna. 4. The Divisional Manager, Bela Workshop, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, MMuzaffarpur. 5. The State of Bihar, through Commissioner cum Secretary, Transport Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna. ------- 04. 04.02.2009 Petitioner is the widow of a former employee of Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. She wants payment of family pension and other post death cum retirement dues of her husband. Respondents in their counter affidavit have crystallized some of the dues which they have worked out as stated in para 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that except for some notional payments the major dues are still outstanding. The writ application is disposed of with a direction that since the matter of payment of retiral dues as well as salary of the employees of the Road Transport Corporation has been monitored by Hon`ble the Supreme Court over the years and directions are being issued from time to time, the claim of the present petitioner shall also be governed by such direction. As far as this Court is concerned can only record that the moment payments are started by the respondents with regard to other employees the case of the petitioner shall also be considered for inclusion and due payment on due priority. - 2 - Petitioner has made a grievance that after filing of the writ application certain materials have been brought to show that an order has been passed against the husband of the petitioner for defalcation of the amount of Rs.1,03,688.06. Therefore this amount has been withheld from the retiral dues of the husband of the petitioner. This Court does not express any opinion on this aspect of the matter but grants liberty to the petitioner to challenge that order by way of fresh writ application if so advised. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)