IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16351 of 2011 Raziya Devi Wife of Late Indradeo Rai, Resident of Village Khairwa Lahladpur, P.S. Madhuban, District East Chmparan. ... ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari. 3. The Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari. 4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sikrahna (Now Pakaridayal), East Champaran. 5. The Circle Officer, Madhuban, East Champaran. 6. The Officer-in-Charge, Madhuban, East Champaran. ... ... Respondents. ---------------------------------- 2. 21.9.2011. Heard Shri Nachiketa Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shashi Shekhar, learned A.C. to S.C.9, who appears on behalf of all the respondents. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to pay death-cum-retiral dues of her husband, who died on 7.6.2007, while functioning as Choukidar under Madhuban Police Station, East Champaran. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner, due to non payment of salary for some period, had earlier filed a writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No.5930 of 2007. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the husband died and thereafter, the petitioner was substituted in the writ 2 petition and thereafter, as per the direction of the court, due salary of the husband of the petitioner was paid to the petitioner by the respondent-authority. However, the respondents have not taken any step to clear all death-cum-retiral dues of her husband nor family pension has been fixed till date. On perusal of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner has not demanded justice relating to claim as raised in the present writ petition by filing any representation. However, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has orally approached the authority concerned on number of occasions for the relief sought for in the present writ petition. In view of the facts and circumstances, the court is of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation regarding claim as raised in the present writ petition before respondent no.2 within a period of six weeks from today. If such representation is filed, respondent no.2 is 3 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 genuine, he is required to take all steps so that death-cum-retiral dues of the husband of the petitioner may be paid to the petitioner within three months from the date of filing of such representation and also the petitioner may start to get family pension. 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 petitioner shall be entitled to get admissible statutory interest on delayed payment. With above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. N.H./ ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)