IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10162 of 2008 Kalyani Devi, Wife of Late Ram Kishore Thakur, Resident of Village – Parsauni Kapoor, P.O. – Parsauni Pagahiya, Via – Hardi, P.S. – Kathaiya, District – Muzaffarpur. ……….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Treasury Officer, Muzaffarpur. 5. The Provident Fund Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur. 6. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. ………. Respondents ---------------------------------- 3 17.11.2011 Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P. Rajan, learned A.C. to Government Pleader No. 12, who appears on behalf of respondent no. 1 to 5 /state of Bihar and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 6 / Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. The petitioner’s husband had retired on 31.01.1999 as ‘Junior Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Hajipur’. Subsequently, on 11.05.2002, he died. The petitioner after not getting the difference of retirement benefit as well as payment of all the amount of G.P.F. of her husband approached this court by filing the present writ petition. The writ petition was filed in the year 2008 after serving copy on learned counsel for respondent. No counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent/State was earlier filed. Only Respondent No. 6/Accountant General, Bihar had filed counter affidavit in the year 2009. However, after the order dated 20.10.2011, a vague counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of 2 Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Hajipur. Even in the counter affidavit the deponent has not indicated as to whether the affidavit was filed on behalf of all the respondents/state or not, but it appears that the claim of the petitioner regarding difference of salary has not been disputed and it has been indicated that the Executive Engineer has sent a letter on 05.11.2011 with relevant paper to the competent authority. The respondent has not even bothered to indicate the designation of the authority in its counter affidavit. In a perfunctory manner an affidavit was filed. Till date respondent no. 5 / Provident Fund Officer, has not responded to the writ petition. Accordingly, in view of no specific denial by the respondents/State the writ petition stands allowed with a direction to grant reliefs prayed for in the writ petition within a period of three months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. The respondent no. 5 / Provident Fund Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur, is directed to provide calculation chart and also if there is any outstanding under the head of provident fund of husband of the petitioner, is directed to pay the same within aforesaid time. The writ petition stands allowed. Praful ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)