IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22485 of 2011 Meena Devi wife of Late Baldev Prasad, resident of village Hasanpur, P.O. Kolawan, P.S. Haranaut (Telmer), District Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Director Agriculture Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. District Magistrate, Aurangabad. 3. District Agriculture Officer, Aurangabad. 4. Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad. 5. District Provident Fund Officer, Aurangabad. 6. Block Development Officer, Kutumba Block, District Aurangabad. 7. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. ... ... Respondents. ---------------------------------- 2. 16.12.2011. Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Anjum Praveen, learned A.C. to S.C.3, who appears on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 6 and Shri Prabhat Ranjan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.7/Accountant General. The husband of the petitioner had retired as Village Level Worker (Jan Sevak) on 31.8.1999 from Kutumba Block in the district of Aurangabad. The petitioner, in the present writ petition, has prayed for directing the respondents to pay remaining amount of G.P.F., which was deducted prior to 1978-79. The petitioner has further prayed for directing the respondents for revision of family pension in the scale of 2 Rs.5000-8000 and Rs.6500-10500, which as per the petitioner, is admissible after grant of 1st A.C.P. and 2nd A.C.P. It is not specifically mentioned in the writ petition as to whether earlier A.C.P. was granted or not. In that view of the matter, no positive order can be passed by this Court so far as revision of family pension is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the claim of revision of pension, petitioner has also filed representation before respondent no.4/Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer, Aurangabad. However, no decision has been taken in the matter. Similarly, for the claim of remaining amount of G.P.F., the petitioner has filed representation before respondent no.5/District Provident Fund Officer, Aurangabad. 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 regarding the claim of remaining amount of G.P.F. before respondent 3 no.5/District Provident Fund Officer, Aurangabad and regarding revision of family pension before respondent no.4/Sub- Divisional Agriculture Officer, Aurangabad within a period of six weeks from today. If such representation is filed, the court expects that both the respondents shall examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of filing of such representation. With above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. N.H./ ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)