IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.887 of 2006 GOPAL PRASAD S/o- Sri Kanhai Prasad, R/o- Village-Maharani Road, Pahshi, P.O.+ P.S.- Kotwali. District-Gaya. Versus 1. Union of India, through regional Provident Fund commissioner, Bihar, Patna. 2. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,(Pension), Bihar, Patna, Both Regional Office, Employee’s Provident Fund Organization, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, R- Block, Road No.6, Patna.-800001. ----------- 4 02.02.2010 Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the respondent. The petitioner questions the fixation of his pension by the respondents in purported exercise of power under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as against a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month to which he is entitled as by way of pension under the Scheme, the respondent authorities have arbitrarily fixed his pension at the rate of 641/-. It is further stated that although he superannuated with effect from 31.5.2001 and thus was entitled to draw his pension from 1.6.2001, the respondent organization has been paying his pension with effect from 1.7.2001 and thus he is entitled 2 for the arrears for the month of June, 2001. This matter has been pending since the year 2006 and despite a period of four years having passed no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner nor there is any representation on his behalf. In such circumstances this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to raise his grievance as regarding the wrong fixation of pension and nonpayment of pension for the month of June, 2001 before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar, Patna, and who shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law and if the petitioner is entitled to the claim(s) the same may be provided to him within a period of three months from the date of presentation of such representation. Needless to add that if the claim is not found admissible, the same may rejected by a speaking order. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction aforesaid. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J. )