IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2195 of 2006 BHAGNU MALI Versus The REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND ORS. ----------- 2. 18.2.2010. Mr. Naresh Dass learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.K.Verma learned counsel for the respondents are present. The petitioner who superannuated from the services of the Bharat Wagon and Engineering company Limited with effect from 31.5.2002 has filed the writ petition challenging the fixation of his pension by the authorities of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 framed under the Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that whereas according to the stipulations made under the Scheme, the petitioner was entitled to a sum of Rs.1078/- per month by way of pension but the pension was fixed at a lower rate amounting to Rs.725/- P.M. by the authorities of the Provident Fund. It is in these circumstances that the writ petition came to be filed. Mr. B.K. Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent 2 organization submits that the petitioner’s pension has been revised and at present he is drawing monthly pension of Rs.767/ per month. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that calculation has not been done in conformity with the claim and that the petitioner is entitled to a higher pension. Be that as it may, as the issue stands, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and the same is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to raise his grievance before respondent no.1 together with supportive details in support of his claim for higher pension and which shall be considered and disposed of by respondent no.1 in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation. The writ petition stands disposed of. ahk (Jyoti Saran,J.)