IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.373 of 2009 Raj Ranjan Prasad Sinha son of Rajeshwar Prasad Sinha, resident of vill.-Basantpur Patti, P.S.-Saraiya, Distt.-Muzaffarpur was working as Accounts Clerk, Planning and design Division no.3, Ratwara, Distt.- Muzaffarpur presently residing at Mohalla-Imamganj, Majar gali, P.S.- Town, Distt.-Muzaffarpur-----------------------------------------Appellant. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Deptt. of Finance, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur 5. The Chief Engineer, Department of Water Resources, Kalambag Road, Muzaffarpur. 6. The Superintending Engineer, Deptt. of Water Resources Planning and Design Circle, Ratwara, Muzaffarpur. 7. The Executive Engineer, Planning and Design Division No.3, Ratwara, Muzaffarpur. 8. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. ----------------------------- -Respondents. ----------- 7. 29.11.2011 The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 3.2.2009 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. no.1568 of 2009 whereby he has rejected the prayer of the appellant for modification of the orders ( at Annexures-11 and 11/A ) passed by the respondents. Learned single Judge has further directed the appellant to make representation before the concerned authorities for commutation of his pension as on the date of filing of the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge the present appeal has been preferred. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there was no fraud or misrepresentation by the appellant and in absence of this material available to the respondents in this regard, there cannot be any recovery from his retirement dues. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment rendered by the 2 Apex Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. Vrs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2009(1) Supreme 163. As such, as per law laid down by the Apex Court when there is no fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the appellant, no recovery can be made from him. There is no material available to show before the learned single Judge or before this Court by the respondents that the appellant has played any fraud or misrepresentation and in absence of the same and also the law laid down by the Apex Court (Supra), we are of the opinion that the orders ( at Annexures-11 and 11/A ) passed by the respondents annexed with the writ petition cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned single Judge is set aside and this appeal is allowed. Sudip ( T. Meena Kumari, J.) ( Vikash Jain, J. )