IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4811 of 2005 SUDHA SINHA Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 05/ 08.03.2010 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Ambastha, learned counsel appearing on behalf the petitioner, Mr. Anjani Kumar Sharan, learned Central Government counsel for the Union of India and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh for the State Bank of India. The original petitioner Late Major General (Dr. V.P. Sinha @ Vishwanath Prasad Sinha) had filed the writ petition questioning the validity of the Circular dated 11.09.2001 (Annexure-3) for not taking into consideration the non-practicing allowance earned by the Medical doctors in services for the purpose of computation of pension admissible to a commissioned officer in the medical services of the Army. The petitioner also questioned the direction contained in the letter dated 8.2.2002 (Annexure-4). It was notified that payments made beyond 11.9.2001 be adjusted and that no recovery be made over and above the paid amount during the period 1.1.1996 to 10.9.2001 until further instructions. Unfortunately, while the writ petition was pending the original petitioner expired on 22.03.2006 and has been substituted by his widow who is pursuing the matter. It so appears that this issue including the validity of the 2 notification dated 11.9.2001 (Annexure-3) went up to the Supreme Court and by judgment and order dated 10.10.2006 the issue was decided in favour of the respondent authorities and the validity of the Circular dated 7.6.1999 and 11.09.2001 were upheld. However, even while upholding the validity of the Circulars the Supreme Court restrained the recovery of payments made until 11.9.2001. The authorities, however, were granted liberty to recover the amount paid since after 11.9.2001 in monthly installment. It is not the case of the petitioner that any amount was recovered subsequent to 11.09.2001 and could not have been made in view of the clear cut stipulations made in Annexure-4 staying the recovery until further instructions. As the issue came to be finally decided by the Supreme Court only after the expiry of the original petitioner, obviously the said recovery could not have been effected nor can be effected now. The present petitioner who is the widow of the deceased employee is indisputably drawing her family pension with effect from April, 2006. In such situation the writ petition has become infructuous. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a feeble attempt of seeking a liberty for the present petitioner 3 to raise her grievance, if any, as regarding her family pension. She is at liberty to do so and if any such representation is filed, the same should be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. The writ petition stands disposed of. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)