IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12237 of 2008 Sudhakar Pandey, son of Late Shyam Nandan Pandey, village Bhado, P.O. Amnaur, P.S. Aurai, District Muzaffarpur, presently Headmaster, Nationalized Middle School Railway Colony, Brahampura, P.O. MIT Muzaffarpur, Brahampura, District Muzaffarpur………………………………………………………….…….Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Vikas Bhawan, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Patna. 3. District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur. 4. Area Education Officer, Muzaffarpur. 5. District Treasury Officer, Muzaffarpur………………………………………..………………..Respondents ----------- 2 17.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Petitioner’s prayer in this writ application is for a direction to the respondents to pass final bill of Leave Travel Concession (L.T.C.) and pay the remaining amount of Rs.300/- and prohibit them to recover the amount from him as has been done in the case of others. From Annexure-3 it appears that the petitioner had taken L.T.C. advance of Rs.1200/- and he went on L.T.C. and submitted the bill of Rs.1621/- after adjusting amount of Rs.1200/- an amount of 2 Rs.300/- fell due to him. However, instead of paying the said Rs.300/- to the petitioner, the respondents contemplated to recover the amount of L.T.C. advance with interest. Since in identical circumstances, as appearing from Annexure-4 series, the same had been done in others’ cases, he has filed this writ application for a direction to prohibit respondents to recover the said amount. After filing of the writ application, petitioner has superannuated from service on 30.11.2008.From Annexure-7 with the supplementary affidavit it appears that recovery of amount of Rs.8886/- from the gratuity of the petitioner has been kept in abeyance pending his matter in this Court. There is nothing on record to show why the L.T.C. amount was required to be recovered from the petitioner when once the same was sanctioned to him. From the bill itself it appears that amount of Rs.1200/- was paid to the petitioner as advance. Hence, his entitlement for L.T.C. could not be disputed. 3 In the circumstances, on equitable considerations, this Court directs that recovery of the amount of Rs.8886/- from the gratuity of the petitioner shall not be made and petitioner shall be entitled to full gratuity in accordance with law if there is no other amount due, as per law, deductible from the same and L.T.C. bill of the petitioner shall be treated as passed. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)