IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14285 of 2011 Parmeshwar Prasad, Son of Late Rajeshwar Prasad, Resident of Madhubani Town, Mohalla- Suratganj, Mahila College Road, Ward No.18, Police Station Madhubani, District Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Patna having its Head office at Indira Bhawan, Ram Charitra Singh Path, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Financial Officer-cum-Chief Accounts Officer, Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Patna. 4. The General Manager, Electric Equipment Factory, Tatisilwai, Ranchi. ... ... Respondents. ---------------------------------- 2. 8.9.2011. Heard Shri Prabhas Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Amrendra Kumar, learned A.C. to G.P.8, who appears on behalf of respondent no.1/State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 4/Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Patna. The petitioner, who retired as Junior Stores Assistant, Electric Equipment Factory, Tatesilwai, Ranchi with effect from 28.2.2001, has prayed for directing the respondents to make payment of his retiral dues. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to paragraph-5 of the writ petition and submits that the 2 Electric Equipment Factory, Tatesilwai, Ranchi is an unit of Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, which is a Government of Bihar Undertaking. He further submits that petitioner has also filed representation before respondent no.2 for redressal of his grievances, but till date, no decision has been taken. It was submitted that the writ petition can be disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner for approaching respondent no.2 by filing a fresh representation. In view of stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no need to further keep the matter pending. The writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh detailed representation before respondent no.2 within a period of six weeks from today. If such representation is filed, respondent no.2 is required to examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation. If respondent no.2 considers the claim of the petitioner as 3 genuine, he is required to pass order for payment within aforesaid time. Even in case of refusal, respondent no.2 is required to pass a speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner within three months from the date of filing of such representation. It goes without saying that on delayed payment, the petitioner shall be entitled to get admissible statutory interest. With above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. N.H./ ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)