IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13236 of 2006 RANJANA SINHA, DAUGHTER OF LATE NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BHOJUWA, P.O.- GOGRI, DISTRICT – KHAGARIA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MOHALLA & P.O.- BARI KHANJARPUR, BARGACH CHOWK, R.B. SURYA PRASAD ROAD, DISTRICT – BHAGALPUR. .......... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL WORKS DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR. 3. THE DISTRICT PROVIDENT OFFICER, MUZAFFARPUR. ......... RESPONDENTS ----------- 3 25.04.2011 Heard Sri Subroteswar De, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Surya Kant Kumar, learned A.C. to Standing Counsel No. 19, who appears on behalf of respondent/State. The writ petition was initially filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to make payment of amount of provident fund which was deposited in the provident fund account of his father who retired in the year 1992 and died in the year 1993. The petitioner further prayed for directing for payment of family pension. In this case, counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 & 3 separately. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2/Electrical Executive Engineer, Electrical Works Division, Muzaffarpur, it has been stated that petitioner is not entitled to get family pension and petition is misconceived. The petitioner’s father had retired on 31.07.1992, and thereafter, he died on 20th April, 1993 and subsequently, petitioner’s mother also died in the year 2006. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out from page 6 i.e. affidavit of the writ petition, that on the date of filing of the writ 2 petition the petitioner was thirty one year old, and as such, she was not entitled to get family pension. So far as amount of G.P.F. is concerned, it has been clarified that same has already been paid to the petitioner on 26.06.2007. In view of the facts and circumstances, it appears that, the grievance in relation to payment of amount of provident fund has already been redressed. Learned counsel for respondent/State has rightly submitted that petitioner is not entitled to get family pension. The writ petition stands disposed of. Praful (Rakesh Kumar, J.)