IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6797 of 2011 RAKESH RANJAN, aged 27 years, Son of Late Ramayan Mishra, Resident of Village & P.O.- Nawadih, P.S.- Indrapuri, District – Rohtas. ……. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna. 2. The Director, Provident Fund Directorate, Pant Bhawan, Patna. 3. The District Provident Fund Officer, Sasaram, District – Rohtas. 4. The Chief Engineer, Mechanical, Water Resources Department, Old Secretariat Barrack, Patna. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Mechanical Circle, Water Resources Department, Gaya Camp- Dehri. 6. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Mechanical Division, Dehri, District – Rohtas. 7. The Accountant General, Bihar, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. 8. The District Magistrate, Rohtas (Pension Cell) at Sasaram. …….. Respondents ----------- 2 19.04.2011 Heard Sri Vishwanath Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Kumari Amrita, learned Govt. Pleader No. 10 who appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 6 & 8 and Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 7/Accountant General, Bihar. The petitioner’s father died in harness on 08.11.2000 while he was functioning as ‘Supervisor’ in the Office of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Mechanical Division, Bhitari Bandh, which has been merged with the Office of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Mechanical Division, Dehri. 2 It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after the death of his father since the petitioner was only legal heir and minor son of the deceased employee the State Government had fixed family pension which was required to be paid till the date of attainment of his majority which as per Finance Department’s Resolution dated 22.12.1999 was 25 years but without any rhyme or reason before attainment of age of 25 years the family pension in favour of the petitioner was stopped from the month of May 2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that amount of provident fund of his father has also not been paid by the respondent authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that writ petition may be disposed of granting liberty to file a fresh representation before the authority concerned. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner has not been objected by learned counsel for the State. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation before respondent nos. 3, 6, 7 & 8 within a 3 period of six weeks from today. If such representation is filed, the aforesaid respondents are directed to examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law redressing the grievances of the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of filing of such representation. The respondent no. 3 i.e. District Provident Fund Officer, Sasaram, is further required to pass order for payment of due G.P.F. amount if he considers the claim of the petitioner as genuine within the aforesaid time. Even in case of refusal, the aforesaid respondents are directed to pass speaking order within four months from the date of filing of such representation. The petition stands disposed of. Praful (Rakesh Kumar, J.)