IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14829 of 2011 Manish Kumar, Son of Late Indu Bhushan Prasad, resident of Village- Suggi, P.S. & District-Jamui ---------------------------------Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj, Bihar,Patna 3. The Jamalpur Municipality 4. The Executive Officer, Jamalpur Municipality, Jamalpur ------------------------------------- Respondents. ---------------------------------- 02 08-09-2011 Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Pushpanjali Sharma, learned A.C. to Govt. Pleader no.4, who appears on behalf of Respondent nos.1 and 2/ State and Sri Rakesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no.3 and 4. The petitioner’s father, who was Class –IV employee (Safai Mazdoor) in Jamalpur Municipality, Jamalpur, died on 21.09.2008 in harness. The petitioner has claimed death-cum- retiral dues of his father in the present writ petition. Sri Rakesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent nos.3 and 4 submits that most of the death- cum- retiral dues have already been paid. Only certain amounts are still due. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed representation before Respondent no.4 regarding his claim, but the same has not been decided till date. Accordingly, it has been prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the writ petition may be disposed of directing the Respondent no.4 to take final decision in the matter. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the 2 petitioner, there is no need to keep the present writ petition pending. The writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation regarding remaining grievance before the Respondent no.4 within a period of six weeks from today. If such representation is filed by the petitioner, the Respondent no.4 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 the Respondent no.4 considers the claim of the petitioner as genuine, he is required to pass order for payment within the aforesaid time. Even in case of refusal, the Respondent no.4 is required to pass 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 the petitioner shall be entitled to admissible statutory interest on delayed payment. With above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)