IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1397 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 / RESPONDENTS 1ST SET, 4. SHITAL RAUT, S/O LATE MOTI RAUT, R/O WARD NO.7, SUPAUL, P.S. & DISTT- SUPAUL ….. PETITIONER ……………………………………… RESPONDENT 2ND SET. ----------- 4. 26.03.2010 The present appeal has been filed calling in question the legal propriety of the order dated 5.3.2009 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.2992 of 2009. We have heard Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. 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 to him. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned single Judge, it is not necessary to express anything in this regard. What has been stated by the learned single Judge, we think it apposite to reproduce the same as under: “The prayer of the petitioner for release of certain arrears of retiral benefit, in fact, should be decided by the authority in the same terms as contained in the order of this Court dated 17.2.2009 passed in CWJC No. 2289 of 2009 (Annexure-4).” In view of aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the learned single Judge has only asked the respondent Nagar Parishad to do the needful keeping in view the order passed in C.W.J.C. No.2289 of 2009. In our considered opinion, the apprehension that is nurtured by the appellant is misconceived. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Dilip ( Dipak Misra, C.J. ) ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J. )