Order Heard. 2. Mr. A.K. Sahani, appearing for the petitioner, relying on the decision of the Patna High Court in Smt. Sharda Devi vs. State of Bihar and Others [ 1996(2) PLJR 470 ] submitted that the petitioner is entitled to family pension. 3. Counsel for the State and Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, counsel for the Accountant General, pointed out that the case of Smt. Sharda Devi (supra) was overruled by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of The State of Bihar and Others vs. Arya Devi [ 2001 (2) PLJR 212 ]. They also pointed out that the said judgment of Arya Devi (supra) was affirmed by the Supreme Court. 4. In view of the said decision, Mr. 5. On this, Mr. R.K. Singh, appearing for the State, referring to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit, submitted that the Primary Schools were taken over by the Government vide Notification No. LGL 2 to 20/76 Leg 2001 dated 31.12.1976 and as the petitioner's husband died on 18.11.1972 and, therefore, he could not be treated as Government servant and, as such, he was not covered under the triple benefit scheme also. 6. Mr. Sahani submitted that there are notifications under which the petitioner's husband was covered under triple benefit scheme, but nothing has been brought on the record by him. 7. In the circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to make representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau at Medininagar (respondent no. 3). If the petitioner satisfies him that her husband was covered under triple benefit scheme, he will pass necessary order. However, if he is not satisfied, he will communicate the reasons thereof to the petitioner. This exercise should be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of representation along with a copy of this order. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim of the petitioner that her husband was covered under the triple benefit scheme. 9. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. However, no costs.