IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.423 of 2008 ----- Indra Gopal Srivastava son of Late Madan Mohan Sahay, residing in the compound of Central Workshop, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (Camp Jail) P.O. B.V.College, P.S. Gardanibagh (Hawai Adda), District- Patna …. Petitioner …. Appellant Versus 1. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, through its Administrator, Pariwahan Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. 2. Administrator, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Pariwahan Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. 3. Works Manager, Central Workshop, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Phulwari, District- Patna. 4. Chief Accounts Officer, Pariwahan Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. 5. District Magistrate, Patna, District-Patna. 6. District Control Room Patna, through its Incharge District- Patna. 7. The State of Bihar. … Respondents … Respondents ----------- For the appellant : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate For the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. L.K.Tiwary, Advocate For the respondent- State: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh, Junior Counsel to Government Advocate VI -------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------- Dated, the 01st October, 2008 This Letters Patent Appeal is not only misconceived, but is also an abuse of the process of the court. It transpires from the order dated 04th December, 2006 that the petitioner withdrew the writ petition and prayed for some time for vacation of the official - 2 - accommodation. The single judge acted on the representation of the appellant (writ petitioner) and granted him time to vacate the official accommodation by 28th February, 2007. This court further directed that upon vacation of the official accommodation, the respondents shall pay retiral benefits to him as per the package formulated by the Supreme Court. 2. To our query, as to whether the appellant has vacated the official accommodation, the counsel for the appellant answered in the negative. This shows that the intention of the appellant was dishonest in so far as vacation of the official accommodation is concerned. 3. Having not vacated the official accommodation, his grievance of non-payment of retiral benefits is untenable. 4. Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. 5. The respondents shall be at liberty to pursue the appropriate remedy in law in getting the appellant vacated from the official accommodation and also claim penal rent from him for having not vacated the premises despite an undertaking given to this court. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil