IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12915 of 2010 SOHAWAN PRASAD SINGH SON OF LATE MOUJI LAL SINGH, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAPEHUA, P.O.- MOHANPUR, P.S. GAURICHAK, DISTRICT- PATNA, BIHAR, AND AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF C/O SHRI ANUJ KUMAR SINGH, SRINATH NAGAR COLONY, P.O.- ASHIANA NAGAR, P.S. RAJIV NAGAR, DISTRICT- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY, THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER-CUM-CHIEF ENGINEER, THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 5. JOINT SECRETARY (ADMINISTRATION), THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) SAHARSA DIVISION, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICTY BOARD, DISTRICT- SAHARSA 7. THE BIHAR STATE WOMEN COMMISSION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, 1 SOUTH BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 8. THE BIHAR STATE WOMEN COMMISSION THROUGH SECRETARY, 1 SOUTH BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 9. CHANDRAWATI DEVI WIFE OF SOHAWAN PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF QUARTER NO. CAB/ F-45, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICTY BOARD COLONY, P.O. & P.S. SHASTRINAGAR, DISTRICT- PATNA ----------- FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. ARUN KUMAR ADVOCATE FOR THE BOARD : MR. RANJEET SINHA, ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE : MR. VINOD KUMAR, AC TO SC I 2 18.08.2010 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, the State and the respondent-Board. The grievance of the petitioner is against the office order no. 1890 dated 29th June, 2010 communicated to the petitioner as per memo no. 1252 dated 29th June, 2010 as contained in Annexure-9, whereby a decision has been taken to pay forty per cent amount of the pension payable to the petitioner to the wife of the petitioner considering the recommendation of the Bihar State Women Commission, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commission’) passed in Case No. 451A/09. The Commission after considering the complaint of the wife of the petitioner that she in her advanced age is not being given any money for her livelihood or maintenance alleged for the reason that the petitioner is having an illicit relationship with one lady namely, Shanti Devi. The Commission made the aforesaid recommendation after issuing several summons to the petitioner for appearing before the Commission, however the petitioner did not appear pursuant to the summons where the wife of the petitioner namely, Smt. Chandrawati Devi appeared regularly and pressed her case. The Commission after considering the complaint recommended the Board for payment of forty per cent of the pension from the amount of monthly pension payable to the petitioner for the livelihood and maintenance of the wife of the petitioner. The respondent-Board as per the impugned order contained in Annexure-9 passed the order accordingly. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the wife of the petitioner on her own wishes to stay with her son, and as such, the petitioner is not liable to maintain her, however in case the respondent no.9 who is the wife of the petitioner wishes to stay with the petitioner alone she would be maintained. It is further submitted that the Commission has no power to make such recommendation. Moreover, it is submitted that the summons as said to have been sent to the petitioner as referred in the recommendation of the Commission as contained in Annexure-8 is not correct since the petitioner did not receive any such summons, and as such, the recommendation of the Commission is otherwise also not correct. It is further contended that the respondent-Board could have deducted the aforesaid amount from the monthly pension of the petitioner only after getting the order of the competent Court of law. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Board submits that in case the recommendation of the Commission as contained in Annexure-8 is not correct for the simple reason that the petitioner did not receive any summons, it was open for the petitioner to assail the aforesaid recommendation of the Commission or approach the Commission itself. As such, having not done so, petitioner is not entitled to assail the recommendation of the Commission. Considering the submissions of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the recommendation of the Commission is a statutory recommendation, and as such, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the same it was open for him to assail the same or take appropriate recourse of law. Besides the above it is evident that the respondent- Board has taken such decision on receiving the aforesaid statutory recommendation of the Commission which the Commission had made after considering the nature of allegations levelled in the complaint. Moreover, the stand of the petitioner that in case his wife resides with her son, he is not liable to maintain her is not justified in law. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that in the above facts and circumstances of the case it is not a fit case for exercising its judicial discretion in a proceeding under Article- 226 of the Consistitution of India. The writ application accordingly stands dismissed. Manish/- (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)