IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9140 of 2008 1. SANTOSH MOHAN SON OF GEETA DEVI. 2. SMT. MALTI DEVI. 3. SMT. SHANTI DEVI. 4. SMT. SHOBHA KANTH 5. SMT. TANUJA KANTH 6. SMT. SUNITA DEVI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, OLD SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 3. THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 4. DIRECTOR INDUSTRIES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE HANDLOOM AND HANDICRAFT CORPORATION LTD. INDUSTRY BHAWAN, PATNA. 6. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA. ---------------- 10 01.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent State. The original writ petitioner approached this Court for directing the authorities for payment of the retiral dues of her husband who was an employee of the Department of the Industry, later on, sent on deputation to the respondent Corporation as Sales Manager and while remaining on deputation he retired in 1990 and later died in the year 1994. It has further been submitted that except payment of a sum of Rs. 41,992/- towards the GPF, no other retiral dues were paid to the husband of the original writ petitioner. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the writ application, the original - 2 - writ petitioner died and as such, she was substituted by her legal representatives. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the father of the petitioners was appointed in the year 1954 on the post of Sales Manager in the Department of Industry and continued there till 1976 and thereby sent on deputation to the respondent corporation and retired as such remaining as on deputation. It is accordingly submitted that the father of the petitioner as a Government employee all along entitled to receive all the pensionary benefits including pension. Learned counsel for the State submits that the claims of the petitioner need to be verified from the record in order to determine the admissibility of the pensionary benefits including pension claimed by the petitioners. In the above circumstances learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for expeditious disposal of the claims, petitioner proposes to file a detailed representation before the respondent no. 2 stating details of the claims as also the copy of relevant documents, if any, in support of their claims along with certified copy of present order to respondent no.3, 4 and 5. In case such representation is filed within a period of four weeks the representation of the petitioner be considered in accordance with law expeditiously - 3 - preferably within a period of six months on receipt of such representation so that the necessary sanction be made for enabling the petitioners to receive the admissible retiral dues with interest permissible under the rules. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Amrendra ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.),