IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.555 of 2008 MOSTT.SAVITRI KUNWAR @ SAVITRI KUWAR WIFE OF LATE SUDAMA CHAUDHARY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. PADAULI, P.S. BASANTPUR, DISTRICT SARAN. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATI RAJ, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SARAN. 4. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER, SARAN. 5. THE TREASURY OFFICER, CHAPRA, SARAN. 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, DARIYAPUR, DISTRICT SARAN. 7. THE DISTRICT PROVIDENT FUND OFFICER, SARAN. 8. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), BIHAR BEERCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA ----------- 07. 13.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State as also the Accountant General. The grievance of the petitioner is that her husband while working on the post of Panchayat Sewak under the respondent no. 6, retired on 28th of February 1997 and died on 6th of December 1997. It is submitted that petitioner has been paid provisional pension after the death of her husband, however, the same was stopped in the month of September 2005. The payment of provisional pension was again started on May 2008. It is further submitted that arrears of provisional pension has remained to be settled 2 besides other claims on account of retiral dues like gratuity, Provident Funds and Leave Encashment as indicated in paragraph -1 of the writ application has not been fully settled and paid. It is further submitted that the payment for the month of July, August and September 2003 which according to the petitioner has been withdrawn by some one else and not the petitioner. It is further submitted that on perusal of the letter no. 60 dated 01.07.2010 as contained in Annexure- G written by the Block Development Officer, Dariyapur, District Saran, it would appear that the amount of Rs. 3,71,359/- which was earlier shown to be recoverable from the retiral dues on being re-examined was found not correct. Learned counsel for the State submits that the claims of the petitioner would be verified from the records and the admitted dues if any, may also be paid to the petitioner. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for expeditious disposal of the pending claims, petitioner proposes to file a representation before the respondent no. 3. As regard the claim for provident fund dues, petitioner proposes to file a separate representation before the respondent no. 7. In view of the above , in case such 3 representations stating details of unpaid claims are filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks along with the certified copy of the present order as also the copy of the relevant documents, if any, in support of the claim, the above respondent shall consider and dispose of the representation by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation so that the grievances of the petitioner could be settled without delay and the admitted dues may also be paid along with interest permissible under the rules. Respondent no. 7, District Provident Fund Officer while considering the representation of the petitioner shall dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order indicating the contributions made by the deceased employee towards the provident fund dues. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Jagdish/ ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)