IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.170 of 2009 1. THE Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Pariwahan Bhawan,Birchand Patel Path, Patna, through its Secretary. 2. The Administrator,Bihar State Road Transport Corportaion, Pariwahan Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna … … Appellants Versus 1. BAXI ARUN KUMAR SINHA son of late Ramasis Lal, resident of village Parsa Ganda, P.S.Sikroll, District Bhojpur, at present residing at Central Workshop,Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, P.O.. B.V.College, P.S.Shastri Nagar,District Patna. 2. The State of Bihar … Respondents For the appellants: Shri P.K.Verma, Shri Nand Kumar Sssingh ----------- 2. 20.2.2009 I.A. No 1179 of 2009 This application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing this appeal. Heard. For the reasons stated in this application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. This application stands allowed. With the consent of learned counsel for the appellants we have taken up this 2 appeal for hearing in the admission matter. Heard. The respondents appellants aggrieved by the order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 1537 of 2007 have preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The writ petitioner, respondent herein, aggrieved by the order of compulsory retirement passed in exercise of the power under Rule 74(b) of the Bihar Service Code preferred the writ application. However, during the pendency of the application, by an order dated 1.10.2007 the order of compulsory retirement was recalled. Taking into account the aforesaid facts, the learned Single Judge observed for payment of the wages from the date of the order of compulsory retirement, i.e., 31.5.2006 till the date of its recall, i.e., 1.10.2007. It is this portion of the order of the learned Single Judge which is being impugned in the present appeal. Mr. P.K.Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that 3 under Rule 12 of the Bihar Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, it was for the appellants to take a decision as to how the period for which the order of compulsory retirement on reinstatement shall be treated and the learned Single Judge exceeded in its jurisdiction in holding that the writ petitioner shall be entitled to the wages of that period. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr.Verma. The very assumption that the case shall be governed by Rule 12 of the aforesaid Rules is absolutely misconceived. The aforesaid provision provides for as to how the service on reinstatement of an employee visited with punishment of compulsory retirement is to be treated. The case in hand is not a case of reinstatement because the order of compulsory retirement itself has been withdrawn. Hence the reliance of the appellants on Rules 12 of the Bihar Civil Services( Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,2005 is absolutely misconceived. 4 We do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed in limine. Kanth ( C.K.Prasad, A.C.J.) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)