IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4144 of 2007 NANDU MISTRY Versus THE REGIONAL PROVIDENTL FUND COMMISIONER AND ORS. ----------- 2. 19.2.2010. Mr. Naresh Dass for the petitioner and Mr. Ratnakar Pandey for the respondents are present. The petitioner who superannuated with effect from 30.11.2005 from the services of Daya Engineering Works Limited, Gaya, has filed the writ petition questioning the fixation of his pension by the respondent department under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 framed under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952. Learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the statements made in the writ petition, submits that although the petitioner under the said Scheme was entitled to a pension of Rs.1013/- per month but the respondents Commissioner, without appreciating the provision of the Scheme, has sanctioned the pension of Rs.775/ per month and which is not correct and requires refixation. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents department justifying the refixation as correct. It is, however, 2 submitted that if the petitioner represents before the respondent department with supportive documents, the same would be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. Having regard to the circumstances set forth, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file his representation before respondent no.1 the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner together with supportive details and which shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law within a period of three months from the receipt of such representation. The writ petition stands disposed of with the direction aforesaid. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)