IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6042 of 2006 Jugal Kishore Srivastva, Son of Late Ram Nandan Prasad, resident of Mohalla-Gola Road Mahabir Asthan, P.s. Muzaffarpur-Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur at present residing, C/O Smt. Renuka Chakarvarti, Mohalla- Kachchi Saray, Amar Cinema Road, P.O. Ramana, P.S. Mithanpura, District- Muzaffarpur ( Bihar) ---------------------------------------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna 3. The Director, Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna 4. The Secretary, Health Services, Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar,Vikas Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna 5. The Deputy Director, Health Services ( Family Welfare), Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 6. The Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Tirhut Devision, Muzaffarpur 7. The Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarpur, District-Muzaffarpur 8. The Treasury Officer, District Treasury Office, Muzaffarpur, District-Muzaffarpur 9. The Accountant General ( A& E) II, Bihar ---- Respondents ----------- 02 03-03-2011 Heard Sri Nitya Nand Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Advocate General No.8.I have also heard on I.A. No.6864 of 2008, whereby the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order, contained in Memo No.1468 (4) dated 2.9.2006, whereby an order of punishment was passed in respect of recovery of 20 % amount from the pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without affording any opportunity to the petitioner, the 2 said order was passed and, as such, it is not sustainable in the law. Sri Gautam Bose, learned Addl. Advocate General No.8 submits that the said order was passed in a departmental proceeding after giving sufficient opportunity. Even second show cause notice was also issued before passing order of punishment. Accountant General is also represented by its learned counsel. The writ petition was primarily filed for directing the Respondents to make payment of gratuity amount. The order, which has been challenged by I.A.No.6864 of 2008, cannot be challenged before this Bench. Since the Bench has been assigned to consider the cases of retiral dues, no order can be passed on the prayer made in the Interlocutory Application. Accordingly, I.A.No.6864 of 2008 stands rejected. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to file proper application. It was jointly submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, gratuity amount has already been paid to the petitioner. However, it was 3 submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it has been paid after four years. It is evident that departmental proceeding was pending against the petitioner. Accordingly, the Court is not required to pass any order on the writ petition. The writ petition stands disposed of . NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)