IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8003 of 2008 ARJUN JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.8049 of 2008 RAJE LAL MEHARA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.8079 of 2008 RAMA PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.8106 of 2008 KESHAW PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.8115 of 2008 MOHD.SHAFI ANSARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.8128 of 2008 NILAMBER MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.8330 of 2008 BRAJ BIHARI RAI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.8358 of 2008 RIPUSUDAN JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.8396 of 2008 BHOLA PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.8533 of 2008 ANANT SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With - 2 - CWJC No.8538 of 2008 ADHIR KUMAR MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.8778 of 2008 KRISHNA JIWAN PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.8821 of 2008 RAJENDRA RAI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.8830 of 2008 DEO NARAYAN YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.8848 of 2008 NAND KUMARI DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.8893 of 2008 SURESH JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.9014 of 2008 BRAJ NANDAN PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.9086 of 2008 INDRAPARI KUNWAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.9207 of 2008 RADHA KANT TIWARY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.9225 of 2008 GANGESHWAR RAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- - 3 - 2. 18.8.2010 Since in all these writ applications, the grievances of the petitioners are with regard to the payment of retrial dues, including pension/family pension, with consent of the parties, the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. In all the writ applications, the grievances of the petitioners are with regard to the payment of their retrial dues, which accrued to them upon their superannuation from the posts of Assistant Teacher/Headmaster of the concerned School. However, the retrial dues, including pension/family pension, have not been settled. Resultantly, the petitioners have not received their retrial dues admissible to them. Although all the above cases have been filed in the year 2008, no counter affidavit except in a few cases has been filed as yet. Considering the nature of the claims in all the above writ applications, it is expedient in the interest of justice that the petitioners are permitted to present their claims by way of representation before the concerned District Superintendent of Education/the District Education Officer, with a copy to the Director, Primary Education/Director, Secondary Education, as the case may be. In case the petitioners file their separate representation stating distinctly the details of their unpaid claims as also enclosing the copy of the relevant documents in support of such claims along - 4 - with the certified copy of the present order within a period of four weeks, the grievances of the petitioners, if not already settled, be considered in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation, so that the grievances of the petitioners may be settled and the admitted dues, if any, may also be paid with interest permissible under the rules. Upon consideration, however, if any of the claims or part of the claims is found not admissible, the same shall be informed to the petitioners with the reasons thereof by post under registered cover. All the above writ applications stand disposed of with the above observations/directions. PNM ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)