JUDGMENT : Per Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. 1. Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Saket Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent-State. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction upon the respondents to fix the pension of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.28441/- whereas he is receiving his last pension of Rs.18060/- 3. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to get the pension of Rs.28441/- but at present he is getting only Rs.18060/- 4. On the other hand, Mr. Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the respondents by referring Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, submits that the concerned department has paid actual pension and gratuity to the petitioner and the claim of the petitioner was paid after pension revision order. There is no averment made in the writ petition as to how the petitioner is entitled for that amount as such the Court is not in a position to calculate the pension of the Petitioner. Looking into the Annexure-A of the counter affidavit it transpires that subsequently the pension has been revised. However, if the petitioner feels that he is getting the pension less than the amount he expected he may file detailed representation before the respondent No.4 giving complete data and also calculation as to how his pension will come to Rs.28441/-. The respondent No.4 shall disposed of the same within a period of eight weeks’ from receipt of a copy of this order. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.