06/ 09-Feb-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.205 of 2008 NALINI KANT PAUL SUBSTITUTED WITH HIS LEGAL HEIRS VIDE ORDER DATED 24.11.2010 (1) SMT. ARUNA PAUL WIFE OF NALINI KANT PAUL R/O, NEAR DURGA ASTHAN, KHANCHI HAT, PURNIA. (2) SRI KAUSHIK PAUL, S/O LATE NALINI KANT PAUL C/O MANAGER UNITED BANK OF INDIA, HAPUR BRANCH, NEAR RAMLILA GROUND, DELHI ROAD, HAPUR DISTT, GAZIABAD (UP) (3) SMT. ADITI DAS D/O LATE NALINI KANT PAUL, W/O SRI KAJAL KUMAR DAS, R/O NEW MISSION ROAD, KISHANGANJ, P.S. & DISTT- KISHANGANJ…………………………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PURNEA NAGAR PARISHAD (PURNEA MUNICIPALITY), PURNEA, P.S. & DISTT- PURNEA. 3. PURNEA NAGAR PARISHAD (PURNEA MUNICIPALITY), PURNEA, P.S. & DISTT- PURNEA………RESPONDENTS………….OPP PARTIES. ----------- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order under review dated 06.09.2002. 2. In respect of petitioner’s claim for pension, an employee of Purnea Municipality, by the order under review this Court expressed difficulty in accepting the claim of the petitioner that he had exercised option for pension scheme and that such option was duly received 2 within time. At that time petitioner had not been able to produce any document in support of claim and hence it was held that in writ jurisdiction it was difficult to decide the issue on the basis of rival claims supported by affidavits. Liberty was granted to the writ petitioner who has now been substituted by his heirs that he may file a representation again or approach the Civil Courts to establish his claim of pension. 3. After six years the present review application was filed with a photo copy of a document annexed as Annexure-2 and on that basis it has been submitted that now the petitioner has photo copy of the relevant document to show that he had exercised option for pension scheme within time. 4. In the facts of the case, this Court is not persuaded to review the order on the ground that now a photo copy of a document is available with the petitioner to support his claim that he had opted for the pension scheme within time. Such a claim had been earlier strongly contested by the Municipality by filing affidavit. Hence, the genuineness of the document will have to be tested and in that view of the matter earlier observation 3 of this Court and the liberty granted to the petitioner appears to be quite appropriate. 5. This review petition, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances is found to be lacking in merits and is dismissed accordingly. 6. Earlier order of the writ Court will stand. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)