IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10250 of 2005 DUKH HARAN CHOUDHARY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 04/ 30.03.2010 Mr. Lalan Kumar Singh for the petitioner, Mr. Ram Subhash Singh, assisting counsel to A.A.G. 6 for the State and Mr. L.P.K. Rajgrihar for the Accountant General. The petitioner who superannuated from the post of Driller with effect from 31.5.2000, filed the writ petition for payment of his post retiral and other admissible dues to which he was found entitled. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and in which it is stated that all admissible dues have been paid to the petitioner. It is, however, stated that the pay fixation of the petitioner pursuant to the order of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1689 of 1989 vide letter no. 1497 dated 7.11.1998 (Annexure-2) was conditional upon the approval of the Finance Department. It also contained stipulation of recovery in case of any objection being raised by the Finance Department. It is stated that the Finance Department upon scrutiny of the scale found that it had been incorrectly fixed and by reason whereof an excess amount of Rs. 2,30,846/- was drawn by the petitioner as evident from the letter no. 107 dated 30.1.2003 (Annexure-B). It is stated that after initiation of the final pension the provisional pension has been stopped but the 2 petitioner never appeared before the Treasury Officer and thus he is not receiving his pension. It is further stated that the Treasury Officer vide letter bearing no. 440 dated 7.4.2004 has informed the petitioner but despite the letter he has not turned up. It is thus contended that the non-withdrawal of pension is because of negligence of the petitioner himself. It is further contended that the writ petitioner has also filed another petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 1245 of 2002 and which is pending before a Bench of this Court. Despite the time granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he has not been able to contact the writ petitioner and thus the situation remains as it existed on the date of filing of the counter affidavit. In such circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and the same is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to assail the legality of the order of recovery of Rs. 2,30,846/- vide Annexure-B to the counter affidavit before an appropriate forum if he feels aggrieved. In case of any other pending dues, he may also represent before the authority concerned and who shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The writ petition stands disposed of. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)