Gajadhar Pathak v. The Union Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1738 of 2022 ====================================================== Gajadhar Pathak Son of Sheo Muni Pathak, resident of Village - Bharakhar, P.S. - Raghunathpur, District - Buxar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi. 2.

Director General, Railway Protection Force, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 3.

I.G.-cum-Chief Security Officer, Eastern Railway RPF, Kolkata. 4.

D.R.M. Eastern Railway, Danapur.

5.

Divisional Security Commissioner, Eastern Railway, R.P.F. Danapur. 6.

Divisional Commercial Manager, East Central, Railway, Danapur. 7.

Commandant, R.P.F. Danapur.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ram Hriday Prasad, Advocate For the Union of India :

Mr. Arun Kumar Satyamurti, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 05-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been filed for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order, or direction to the respondents for the grant of disability pension to the petitioner, for giving same pay scale as an R.P.F. Constable, and for the grant of all consequential benefits.

3. Counsel further submits that for grant of the said relief, the petitioner has filed a representation, which is pending

Patna High Court CWJC No.1738 of 2022(3) dt.05-01-2026 2/2 before the Commandant, R.P.F., Danapur, Khagaul, annexed as Annexure-8 Series, but no decision has been taken as yet.

4. Learned counsel for the Union of India submits that a time may be fixed so that the said Respondent No. 7 may take a decision on the representation of the petitioner.

5. In light of the submissions made above, it transpires to this Court that the petitioner has filed a representation on which no order has been passed as yet. Since the said representation is very old, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation before the Commandant, R.P.F., Danapur (Respondent No. 7) within four weeks, and Respondent No. 7 is hereby directed to decide on the petitioner's representation within six weeks thereafter.

6. Accordingly, in view of the above directions, the present writ petition stands disposed off.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Aman Kumar/- U