IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10702 of 2008 Tribeni Prasad, S/o Late Ramlakhan Mistry, Resident of Village – Raghopur, P.S. – Bihta, District – Patna. ……… Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Health Services, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Patna. 5. The District Provident Fund Officer, Patna. 6. The Treasury Officer, Patna. 7. The Sub Treasury Officer, Danapur. 8. The Medical Officer-in-Charge-cum-Drawing Disbursing Officer, Primary Health Centre, Bikram, Patna. 9. The Chairman, District Board, Patna. 10. The D.D.C. –cum–C.E.O., Zila Parishad Patna at Patna. 11. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. ………. Respondents ---------------------------------- 2 03.11.2011 Heard Sri Madhukar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, learned A.C. to Standing Counsel No. 8, appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 to 10/state of Bihar. The petitioner, who retired on 29.02.2008 as ‘Dresser’ from P.H.C., Brah, Bikram, Patna, had initially prayed for directing the respondents to pay all his retiral dues. In this case a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 8. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that save and except the amount of G.P.F. all other retiral dues have been paid. However, it has been contended that pension has been incorrectly fixed on lower scale and also the pension has not been fixed as per first time bound promotion which was granted to the petitioner earlier. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn my 2 attention to averment made in the counter affidavit to the extent that amount of G.P.F. has not been paid to the petitioner. In this case no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 5 /District Provident Fund Officer, Patna. In view of the fact that the petitioner retired long back in the year 2008 and till date payment of G.P.F. amount has not been made, the court is of the opinion that the respondent no. 5 / District Provident Fund Officer, Patna can be directed to make payment of the G.P.F. amount within specified time. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of directing the respondent no. 5 / District Provident Fund Officer, Patna, to make payment of amount of G.P.F. to the petitioner along with admissible statutory interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. So far as the grievance of the petitioner regarding fixation of pension on lower scale is concerned, the court is of the opinion that the petitioner can be granted liberty to file a detailed representation before respondent no. 4/Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical Officer, Patna within a period of six weeks from today. If such representation is filed, the respondent no. 4 is required to examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of filing of such representation. If he considers the claim of the petitioner as genuine, he is required to issue corrected sanction order within aforesaid time. Even in case of refusal, the respondent no. 4 is required to pass a speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner within 3 two months from the date of filing of such representation. The court expects that immediately after receipt of the sanction order from the state authority the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna will issue authorization without any delay. The writ petition stands disposed of. Praful ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)