IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20803 of 2011 Bhrigunath Singh, Son of Nathun Singh, Village – Ramgar, P.O. – Sahar Telpha, P.S. – Karpi, District – Arwal . ……. ……… ………. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Primary Education Department, Vikash Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Vikash Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Director-cum-Joint Commissioner, Directorate Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Collector, Jehanabad, District – Jehanabad. 5. The District Provident Fund Officer, Jehanabad, District – Jehanabad. 6. The District Programme Officer, Establishment (Jehanabad), District – Jehanabad. 7. The District Programme Officer Establishment (Arwal), District – Arwal. 8. The Treasury Officer (Arwal), District – Arwal. 9. The Block Education Extension Officer (Karpi), District – Arwal. 10. The Area Officer, Arwal, District – Arwal. 11. The Drawing & Disbursing Officer, Middle School Sonebhadra (Karpi), District – Arwal. 12. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. …….. Respondents ---------------------------------- 2 25.11.2011 Heard Sri Ghanshyam Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vipin Chandra, learned A.C. to Additional Advocate General No. 11, appearing on behalf of Respondent/State. The petitioner, who retired on 30.06.2005 as ‘Assistant Teacher’ from Rajkiya Middle School, Sonebhadra in the district of Arwal, has prayed for directing the Respondents to make payment of differential amount of pay (amount of his salary) from 21.09.1971 to 31.03.1973 along with statutory interest, unpaid amount of G.P.F. account for the period 21.09.1971 to 31.12.1976 with statutory interest, remaining amount of gratuity along with interest. It was submitted that for the relief sought for in the writ petition, the petitioner has also filed representation before the competent authority. However, till date, no decision has been taken nor the grievances of the petitioner have been redressed till date. 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. 5/District Provident Fund Officer, Jehanabad and Respondent No. 7 / District Programme Officer Establishment (Arwal). If such representation is filed within a period of six weeks from today, both the aforesaid respondents are required to examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within period of three months from the date of filing of such representation. If the Respondent No. 5 & 7 consider the claim of the petitioner as genuine, they are required to pass order for clearing the dues within aforesaid time. Even in case of refusal, both the aforesaid respondents are required to pass a speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner within three months from the date of filing of such representation. The writ petition stands disposed of with above observation and direction. Praful (Rakesh Kumar, J.)