IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6122 of 2008 SMT.BHARTI KUMARI, wife of Chandeshwar Prasad Singh, resident of Mohalla-Adalpur, P.S. Hajipur Sadar, District-Vaishali. ---Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through its Chief Secretary. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Collector of the District Vaishali at Hajipur. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Vaishali at Hajipur. 5. The District Provident Fund Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur. 6. The Headmaster, Government Middle School, Chowk Hajipur, District-Vaishali. 7. The Accountant General, Bihar. ---Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr Shantanu Kumar, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr A.K. Sharan, S.C.20 For the Accountant General : Mr. Vivekanand Kumar & Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Singh, Advocates --------------- 7. 20.9.2010 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the State as also the Accountant General. The grievance of the petitioner is that upon her superannuation on 31st of July, 2007 as an Assistant Teacher from the Government Middle School, Chowk Hajipur, District-Vaishali, she is not receiving her pension although the Pension Payment Order (P.P.O.) was issued to the petitioner, firstly, for the reason that the name of the petitioner was not correctly mentioned in the said P.P.O. and secondly, that the copy of the P.P.O. was not forwarded to the petitioner with the result that the same could not be - 2 - produced before the Treasury Officer. Her other grievance is for revision of commutation of pension. Besides the above, it is submitted that for want of “No Dues Certificate” to be issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Vaishali at Hajipur (respondent no.4), the payment of pension could not be materialized. Notwithstanding the fact that the pension has been sanctioned, the same needs to be revised and a fresh sanction order be issued due to the revision of pay scale with effect from 1.1.2006.The next grievance of the petitioner is that the dues of provident fund were not correctly calculated as all the deductions made from her salary were not accounted for as would be appearing from Annexure 15. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the grievances of the petitioner would be considered without delay. In the above circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner proposes to file separate representation before the District Superintendent of Education, Vaishali at Hajipur (respondent no.4), the District Provident Fund Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur (respondent no.5) and the Accountant General, Bihar (respondent no.7) with respect to her respective grievances. In case such separate representations are filed stating the details of her grievances as also enclosing the copy of the relevant documents, if any, in support of such claims along with the certified copy of the present order within a period of four weeks, the respective grievances of the petitioner as raised in her representations be considered by the concerned respondents in - 3 - accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation, so that all the grievances of the petitioner, including the payment of pension as also the grievance with regard to the payment of G.P.F. could be settled without delay. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)