IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.703 of 2006 SHREE NATH RAI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 03/ 28.01.2010 Heard Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned assisting counsel to A.A.G. 10, Mr. Arun Kumar Arun counsel representing the Accountant General and Mr. Dhruv Mukherjee, learned counsel representing the respondent no.3. The petitioner who superannuated from the services of the respondent from the post of A.S.I. with effect from 30.6.1997 has filed the writ petition for refund of the amount recovered from the gratuity amount admissible to the petitioner by reason of excess pay and allowances drawn by him by holding the post even after his actual date of retirement which was 30.6.1996. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and in which it was stated that in terms of date of birth entered in the service book of the petitioner he was to retire on 30.6.1996 but the petitioner wrongfully and illegally continued in service until 30.10.1997 and in the process has drawn an amount of Rs. 95,899/- by way of pay and allowances. The said amount having been drawn by the petitioner by holding the post illegally even after his date of superannuation was recovered from the gratuity amount admissible to the petitioner. 2 Learned counsel for the State submits that the said recovery had been effected acting upon the own admission of the petitioner, copy of which is placed at Annexure-B to the counter affidavit which is a letter dated 27.1.1997 of the petitioner addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Bihar Police Training Centre, Padma, Hazaribagh in which he has stated that the pay and allowances he has drawn since after 1.7.1996 until 30.6.1997 should be adjusted from the pensionary entitlements admissible to him. Learned counsel thus submits that acting upon the admission of the petitioner the said amount has been recovered from his gratuity amount and there is no infirmity in the action of the respondents. It is further submitted that the said action was taken as back as in the year 1997 but the petitioner has chosen to file this writ petition after a lapse of almost nine years in 2006 and thus the writ petition is also not maintainable on grounds of gross laches and delay. Having regard to the facts and circumstances set forth, no case for indulgence has been made out in the writ petition. It is dismissed. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)