IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9945 of 2006 SIRAJUDDIN, son of late Hasanuddin, resident of House No.57, Sector-2, Harun Nagar, P S – Phulwarisharif, District – Patna. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Agriculture Production Commissioner, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Director of Agriculture, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Joint Director, Agriculture, Bihar, Patna. 6. The Under Secretary (Personnel Claims Cell), Department of Finance, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 7. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. 8. The Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar, Patna. ----------- 02. 22.11.2010 Petitioner retired in the year 2003, who was holding the post of a Block Development Officer at the time of his retirement though he entered his service as an Agriculture Inspector way back in the year 1965. He represented before the various authorities including the Chief Secretary, Agriculture Production Commissioner, Director, Agriculture etc. for grant of pecuniary benefits for certain periods which have been indicated in para 1 of the writ application. Petitioner was also under suspension and he retired during suspension. Suspension was revoked as would be evident from Annexure-1, which is the notification of Agriculture Department, No. 3091 dated 14th July, 2004. In the last four years when the writ application was pending, no counter affidavit has been filed in the matter. Counsel for the State informs the Court that letter has been written but there is no response. In view of the same this Court is left with no option but to relegate the petitioner before respondent No.3, the Agriculture Production Commissioner, Government of Bihar that he will take cognizance of various representations filed by the petitioner in 2 annexure-3 series and communicate his opinion on the claim of the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order. Petitioner would also be well advised to tender a fresh copy of annexure-3 series along with a copy of this order to enable respondent No.3 to do the needful as directed above. The Court expects that in case the relief prayed for by the petitioner is found to be correct, then consequence will flow in his favour within the same time or else a speaking order will also be passed and communicated within the same time frame. The writ application stands disposed of with above direction. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)