D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that suffice it will be for disposal of this writ petition, if a direction is given to respondent no. 1 to treat this writ petition as a representation and decide the claim of the petitioner, by passing a detailed speaking order, in accordance with law and within stipulated time, as given by this Court.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that they have no much objection, if such a direction is given to respondent no. 1 to treat this writ petition as a representation and decide the claim of the petitioner, by passing a detailed speaking order, in accordance with law and within stipulated time, as given by this Court.
(3.) In view of these submissions, I hereby direct respondent no. 1 to treat this writ petition as a representation and decide the claim of the petitioner for pension of the husband of the petitioner till his death and, thereafter, family pension and such other retirement benefits. The husband of the petitioner retired on 31st August, 1999 and expired on 22nd August, 2009. The decision will be taken by respondent no. 1 keeping in mind the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Bharti Prasad Thakur v/s. Sidhu Kanhu University, Dumka & Ors., reported in, (2002) 1 JLJR 491 and also keeping in the mind the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 22nd December, 2006 in W.P. (S) No. 2859 of 2004, by passing a detailed speaking order, in accordance with law, rules, regulations, polices and Government enforceable orders, applicable to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and practicable, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court, after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or to her representative.;