IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 7251 of 2003 Harkhit Singh, son of Gaya Singh, present resident of Mohalla-West Karyanand Nagar, Ward No 5, Purani Bazar, Lakhisarai, Dist-Lakhisarai - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 The Treasury Officer, Lakhisarai 3 The Executive Engineer, Ganga -Sone- Flood Protection Division, Digha, Patna 4 The District Provident Officer, Collectorate, Patna 5 The Accountant General (Audit and Establish-II), Bihar, Patna - Respondents *** For the petitioner : Mr Gokarn Prasad Singh, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr Vipin Kumar, J C to A G For the Accountant General : Mr Madhuresh Prasad Advocate *** 8 11.11.2008 The petitioner superannuated in the year 1988 and provisional pension order was issued. Under the PPO, the pension was fixed at Rs 850/-. Subsequently when the final pension order was issued, it was found that there was calculation mistake and his pension entitlement was actually Rs 595/- (with effect from 01.03.1989) and at the revised pay scale. Accordingly, pension was revised and excess amount paid was recovered. This brought the petitioner to this Court in CWJC No 1136 of 2001 which was disposed of by this Court on 26.08.2002 (Annexure-1). In that order, this Court categorically found that the pension of the petitioner was wrongly fixed provisionally at Rs 850/- which was corrected when it was reduced to Rs 595/- (with effect from 01.03.1989). This being a clerical correction, this Court held no notice 2 was required as this was merely clerical correction and not by way of punishment or otherwise. Similarly, this Court held that no notice was also required for recovering excess payment as again it was not as a matter of punishment but only giving effect to the correct payment. However, petitioner was given liberty to make representation to the Accountant General in case he found there was a mistake in arithmetical calculation. It appears taking advantage from this observation, petitioner made a representation which was disposed of by order as contained in Annexure-2 being order dated 25.03.2003. Curiously in this order what has been said is just the reverse of what was the stand earlier. By this order, it is found that the entitlement of the petitioner is in fact Rs 830/- and not Rs 595/-. This issue had been closed by this Court in the earlier writ application. On strength of this order, as contained in Annexure-2, the writ petition was filed claiming for refund of amounts deducted from the pensionary benefit and continuance of pension at the rate of Rs 830/-. While the writ petition was pending, the Accountant General revised Annexure-2 that is its earlier order. It pointed out that Annexure-2 was issued under a mistaken apprehension. It noticed that the entitlement was in fact of Rs 595 (with effect from 01.03.1989) which was wrongly adjudged at Rs 830/-. In my view, the effect is that Annexure-2 ceases to survive and is sub-planted by Annexure-A to the counter affidavit which is the same as Annexure-11 to the supplementary affidavit of petitioner. Annexure-A, as aforesaid, is consistent with the earlier order of this Court which closed this controversy. That being so, Annexure-A, which 3 is same as Annexure-11, cannot be interfered with and that being so, the writ petition merits no consideration and is dismissed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)