IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5243 of 2010 BABY DEVI, W/O LATE SHARWAN KUMAR, R/O VILL.- BAHADURPUR, P.O. & P.S. BARBIGHA, DISTT.- NALANDA. ---Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPTT., NIRMAN BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF - CUM - ADDL. COMMISSIONER - CUM - SPECIAL SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NIRMAN BHAWAN, PATNA. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, C.D.O. BUILDING, NIRMAN BHAWAN, PATNA. 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, HIGHWAY PLANNING & RESEARCH CIRCLE, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PLANNING & RESEARCH DIVISION, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. ---Respondents ----------- 2. 26.7.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr P.K. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General No.11 appearing for the State. The grievance of the petitioner is that her husband was appointed as Choukidar in a work-charged establishment on 3rd of February, 1980 under the orders of respondent no.6. The employee concerned worked for twenty years under the work-charged establishment, but his services were not regularized. The husband of the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petitioner, vide CWJC No.6217 of 2003, whereby the matter was remitted back for consideration, whereupon the matter was considered. However, his claim for regularization was rejected as per the order bearing Memo no.3472 (S) dated 29th of March, 2006, as contained in Annexure A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. The husband 2 of the petitioner had challenged the aforesaid order through the writ application vide CWJC No.4517 of 2007. The husband of the petitioner died during the pendency of the said writ application and thereafter the said writ application could not proceed further. However, the petitioner has taken steps for substitution of the legal heirs in the said writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioner, notwithstanding the above, submits that even if the services of the husband of the petitioner were not regularized, even then the petitioner, who is the widow of the deceased employee, is entitled to receive the family pension and other admissible retiral dues. Mr P.K.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General no.11 submits that the petitioner has filed this writ application, however, the relevant details are not mentioned in the writ application. Moreover, it appears that the petitioner has approached this Court without exhausting the internal remedy. In the above circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for expeditious disposal of the grievances, as highlighted in this writ application, the petitioner proposes to file a representation before the Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Road Construction Department, Patna (respondent no.2), with a copy to the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna (respondent no.3). In case such a representation is filed stating distinctly the details of her unpaid claims as also enclosing the copy of the relevant 3 documents, if any, in support of such claims along with the certified copy of the present order within a period of four weeks, the representation of the petitioner be considered and disposed of by a reasoned order in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months on receipt of such representation, so that the grievances of the petitioner may be settled. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)