IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.215 of 2009 SOHAN KUMAR CHAUDHARI, son of Late Chaudhari lakshman Rai, resident of Village Dakh Ram Tola pauri, P.S. bahera, District Darbhanga. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2.Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Kishanganj Division, Kishanganj. 3.Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Kishanganj Division, Kishanganj. 4.Accountant General Bihar, Birchand Patel, Bihar, Patna. ----------- 3 4/5/2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for payment of certain retirement benefit which became admissible on account of retirement followed by death of his father, Late Chaudhari Lakshman Rai who was an employee of the State of Bihar. From the representation filed by the petitioner it would appear that his father had retired in the year 1996 and also died in the year 1998. Thereafter, mother of the petitioner, widow of the employee, also died in the year 2000 and till that time payment of pension and family pension to the tune of Rs.59,713/- and gratuity to the tune of Rs.44,240/- was made. The petitioner, however, claiming to be the son of the deceased employee has been running to the authorities with a claim that most probably the payment of retirement benefit on the head of Group Insurance, Leave Encashment and Provident Fund 2 of his father was not made in his life time or to his mother after the death of his father in 1998. The petitioner also has some belief that something more was admissible on the head of pension/family pension beyond sum of Rs.59,713/- and gratuity beyond a sum of Rs.44,240/-. It is however only on aforesaid speculation and supposition of the petitioner which has led to filing of this writ petition. Probably the matter could have been looked into an also decided by this Court conclusively had the respondents been vigilant to the cause and could have filed their counter affidavit unfortunately such counter affidavit has not been filed till date and a period of 15 months has, however, not been good enough for filing of the counter affidavit. In such a situation, this Court would only direct the Superintending Engineer of the Road Construction Department, Kishanganj to examine the grievance of the petitioner and if it is found that the petitioner, being son of the deceased employee, after death of his mother is entitled to receive payment of any of the unpaid retirement benefit of his deceased father/mother, the same must be made available to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation by the petitioner along with a copy of this order. Let it be however made clear that this Court has not held that the petitioner is actually entitled to any of the amount claimed by him by way of retirement benefit of his father and 3 therefore all that this court expects that the respondents would look into from the records as to whether such payment of retirement benefit as was admissible to father of the petitioner had already been made or not. In the event, such payment has already been made, the respondents will only inform the petitioner about the amount and date of such payment. With the aforementioned observation/direction this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)