IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.96 of 2009 RAM NANDAN PRASAD,SON OF LATE RAGHO LAL, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-NAI GODAM LANE, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTT-GAYA------ APPELLANT Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, AURANGABAD, DISTT- AURANGABAD 3. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,RAFIGANJ BLOCK, DISTT-AURANGABAD 4. THE NAZIR,RAFIGANJ, BLOCK, DISTT-AURANGABAD 5. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIRCHAND PATEL MARG, PATNA---RESPONDENTS ----------- Reg. I.A. No. 546 of 2009 2 28.1.2009 This application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands allowed. We have taken the appeal on merit. Writ petitioner-appellant aggrieved by the order dated 4.12.2008 passed by a learned single Judge in CWJC No. 9964 of 2003, has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Writ petitioner- appellant was himself an Accounts Clerk and has drawn excess payment. He was asked to refund an amout of Rs,35,419/- which he had drawn in excess. He challenged - 2 - the aforesaid order in the writ application which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ application has observed as follows:- “Similarly, petitioner has now annexed Annexure-3 which is Annexure-E to the counter affidavit which again points out how erroneously the petitioner’s salary was fixed. As a consequence whereof, the petitioner was liable to refund Rs.35,419/-. These are the only three demands against the petitioner. Petitioner has not been able to show that the payments as made to him earlier or as fixed by him were correct or that the amount now being sought to be deducted are wrong.” We do not find any error in the same. Appeal stands dismissed in limine. (Chandramauli Kr.Prasad,ACJ.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma,J.) A.Kumar