IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1435 of 2010 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Deputy Director General N.C.C. Directorate, Bihar & Jharkhand Rajendra Path Patna. 800019. 3. The Group Commander, N.C.C. Group Head Quarter, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Commanding Officer 7, Bihar Battalion, N.C.C. Saran Chapra. .................... Appellants / Respondents. Versus RAM NARAYAN SINGH, S/O. Late Kuldip Singh, R/O. Village – Sukhpura, District – Balia, (U.P.). .................. Respondent / Petitioner. ----------- For the Appellants :- Mr. Vishwajeet Kumar Mishra, A.C. To G.A. IX. For the Respondent :- Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwary, Advocate. 04/ 21.01.2011 The present L.P.A. application has been filed against the order dated 03.02.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2299 of 2005 whereby the learned Single Judge after going through the merits of the case has allowed the petitioner- respondent herein. The respondents-appellants have challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge questioning the action to the respondents-appellants withholding the amount of Rs.81,693/- on the ground of excess payment w.e.f. 1st April, 1981 to 30th June, 2001. The case of the petitioner-respondent before the learned Single Judge was that the authority has no right to withhold the amount as it is not a case of misrepresentation of 2 excess payment, misrepresentation or fraud. The appellants-respondents herein being the respondents took the stand that even there is direction of the Commandant not to make payment, as the State of Bihar has not accepted the revision of pay scale, still the Commandant has paid the excess salary and it is also contended that the appellants have not placed the letters addressed by the department before the Commandant. The learned Single Judge has not accepted the contention finding that there is no material available to come to such conclusion as the Commandant has failed to take action against the respondent- petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the department has also contended that more so letters advanced before the learned Single Judge contending that the respondent-petitioner was at fault in not putting the letters before the Commandant and he has misconducted himself. However, there is no material placed before this Court to support such contention and the fact remains that the said Commandant has not taken any action against the respondent-petitioner if any of the letters have not been placed before him normally for a period of more than 15 years. In the absence of such material, we have no hesitation 3 in upholding the order of the learned Single Judge passed in the writ petition and we see no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. The L.P.A. application is dismissed without costs. S.A./Kundan (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Gopal Prasad, J.)