IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1312 of 2009 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NAGAR PARISHAD, SUPAUL, P.S. & DISTT. SUPAUL --------------- Respondent no.4-Appellant. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SUPAUL ------------Respondents-Respondents 1st set. 4. BINDESHWAR KAMAT @ BINDESHWARI KAMAT S/O MANI KAMAT R/O WARD NO. 24, P.O., P.S. & DISTT. SUPAUL----------------------------Petitioner-Respondent 2nd set. with LPA No.1378 of 2009 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NAGAR PARISHAD, SUPAUL, P.S. & DISTT.- SUPAUL ---------------Respondent No.4- Appellant. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SUPAUL --------Respondents-Respondent 2nd set. 4. MAHENDRA PRATAP CHOUDHARY S/O LATE RAMJI CHOUDHARY R/O WARD NO.-7, P.O., P.S. & DISTT.- SUPAUL -----Respondent No.4-Respondent 2nd set. ----------- 3 25-03-2010 The present appeals have been filed calling in question the legal propriety of the orders dated 4.3.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.2900 of 2009 and C.W.J.C. No.2938 of 2009. 2 We have heard Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants. It is submitted by Mr. Amitesh Kumar that the learned Single Judge has issued a mandamus for payment of pension and other dues to the respondent- writ petitioner by Nagar Parishad, Supaul, though pension is not payable. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we really do not perceive any merit in that manner. What has been stated by the learned Single Judge we think to be apt to reproduce:- “Keeping the above in mind as well the order dated 17.2.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No.2289 of 2009 which is the case of Gulabia Devi V. State of Bihar, the writ application is disposed of with a direction that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 will do the needful in the case of petitioner also.” In view of aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has only asked the respondents Nagar Parishad to do the needful keeping in view the order passed in C.W.J.C. NO.2289 of 2009 and also taking note of the fact that name of the writ petitioner finds place at Sl. No.14 and 3 in the requisition 3 made by the Nagar Parishad. In our considered opinion, the apprehension that is nurtured by the appellant is misconceived. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. (Dipak Misra, C.J.) Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)