IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3078 of 2009 ALOK KUMAR & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 6.3.2009 Heard Mr. Manmohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for Magadh University. This Court would find that the mother of the petitioners while she was alive had agitated her grievance with regard to non-payment of her retirement benefits and this Court had disposed of the same by a reasoned order on 26.8.2003 in C.W.J.C.No. 12740/2002 wherein certain directions were issued which being relevant for the purposes of this writ application is extracted hereinbelow. “ Accordingly, this Court directs that the petitioner may contact the Principal for the said payment whereupon the Principal shall ensure payment forthwith. As regards leave encashment it appears that 93 days have been found to be paid and a cheque of Rs. 60,990/- has been produced for the said payment. Learned counsel for the University has also produced cheque of Rs. 25,249/- for payment of group insurance amount and a cheque 2 of Rs. 2,52,242/- for payment of arrear salary from August, 1989, to October, 2000 and amount of Rs. 48,4341/- as D.D.A. and provident fund. All the three cheques, produced today, have been handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner. As regards gratuity it is stated that the same is being paid by P.P.O. No. 1871/03 vide office letter no. Fin/Pen/520/-3 dated 21.8.2003, a photo Stat copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure 2. From the said authority it appears that the said amount is to be paid in account no. 5866 of the petitioner maintained in Central Bank of India, Chiraintad, Patna-20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there is lot of discrepancy in the amount paid to the petitioner so much so that the payment made does not appear to be in the revised scale as per U.G.C.’s recommendation. Learned counsel for the University has not disputed the fact that the payment has not been made in the revised scale, as according to him, the approval of the State Government with respect to fixation of pay scale in the revised scale as per U.G.C.’s recommendation has not been received uptil now. 3 Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that on demand, made by the petitioner, the University shall furnish the details item wise within a week whereupon the petitioner, if feels aggrieved, may raise further grievance before the authority concerned which shall be considered and disposed of by the said authority within four weeks and any further amount found payable must also be paid within the said time. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of.” Counsel for the petitioner very fairly says that the mother of the petitioner had died on 6.1.2006 and the petitioners are not aware as to whether follow up action as per the order of this Court dated 26.8.2003 was taken by their mother in life time or not. This Court, therefore, would find that this writ application for the same cause of action i.e. payment of retirement benefits is not maintainable and infact premature. The petitioners should, therefore, take steps as was directed in the order dated 26.8.2003 and if the petitioners 4 now approach after the death of their mother the University will also implement the order of this Court dated 26.8.2003 in C.W.J.C.No. 12740/2002 in the same way as if it had been claimed by the mother herself. In other words, any admitted amount of retirement benefit which is found payable to the mother of the petitioners in terms of aforesaid order dated 26.8.2003 will be now paid to the heirs including the petitioners. It goes without saying that if any part of the claim of retirement benefit is rejected the University will be also required to give reasons for the same. This application, accordingly, stands disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/