IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No. 11229 of 2006 BAIDYANATH PRASAD SINHA, S/o Late Deonath Sinha, Resident of Village – Palaki, P.O.- Alawalpur, P.S.- Gaurichak, District – Patna. Presently residing in LIG 8, Lohiyanagar, P.S.- Kankarbagh, District – Patna. .......... Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner and Secretary Human Resources Development Department Vikas Bhawan, Patna. 2. Director, Primary Education Bihar, Human Resources Development Department, Vikas Bhawan, Patna. 3. Director, Provident Fund Directorate, Finance Department, Pant Bhawan, Patna. 4. District Provident Fund Officer, Collectoriate, Patna. 5. Accountant General Bihar, Patel Path, Patna. ............ Respondents ----------- 2 08.04.2011 Heard Sri Awadheshwar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.S. Arora, learned Standing Counsel No. 6, appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4. The petitioner who retired in the year 1988 as Block Education Extension Officer, Danapur, has prayed for a direction to make payment of interest on delayed payment of pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pension was received by the petitioner in the year 1995. Since on delayed payment no interest was paid to the petitioner the petitioner approached this court by filing a writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No. 13496 of 2002. The writ petition was disposed of on 25.02.2005 directing the petitioner to file representation before the appropriate authority for the interest. It was further directed that if any such representation is filed the authority will consider it and dispose of the same within a period of one month from the date of filing of such representation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the fact that petitioner had filed representation pursuant to order dated 2 25.02.2005, no decision has been taken till date. In sum and substance, the petitioner has again made the same prayer which was made on earlier occasion and this court had not passed any favourable order but only granted liberty to file representation. Even if after the filing of representation no step was taken by the authority concerned, for the same relief petitioner may not be entitled to maintain second writ petition. The court is of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The petition stands dismissed. Praful ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)