IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.850 of 2011 (Arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 20313/2010) 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Horticulture, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Agriculture, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Dy. Secretary, Deptt. of Home (Special), Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. The District Horticulture Officer Combined Building, Muzaffarpur, Bihar. …..Appellants/Respondents No. 2,3, 46,7. Versus 1. Prayag Dev Srivasatva, son of late Mathura Prasad, resident of village- Hassanpurba, P.O.-Basghat, P.S.-Chakia, District-East Champaran. ……..Respondent 1st set/writ petitioner 2. The Union of India through Under Secretary, Govt. of India, New Delhi, Ministry of Personnel and Public Grievance and Pension (Personnel and Training Department) 3. The State Advisory Committee, Bihar, Patna. 4. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. …Respondents 2nd Set/Respondents No. 1, 5 & 8. For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar No. 1, SC-12 For the State : Mr. Birendra Kukmar AC-SC-12) For Union of India : Mr. Sahvind Kr. Sharma (CAC) For the Jharkhand : Mr. Dhrup Mukherjee, Advocate. For opposite No. 1 : Mr. Gopal Govind Mishra, Advocate. ----------- 3. 18-10-2011 Heard the parties. Admittedly the order under appeal dated 31st January, 2011 made in C.W.J.C. No. 20313/2010 has been passed on a date when nobody appeared for either of the parties. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that on account of lack of opportunity to explain the relevant facts, the Writ Court has wrongly allowed the writ petition without appreciating that order of allocation passed by the competent authority of the Central Government was not at all in challenge. Whatever may be the merit of the submissions 2 advanced on behalf of the State of Bihar and its officials, the appellants, in our view, the Writ Court should have heard the parties before deciding the writ petition on merits, otherwise the writ petition ought to have been dismissed for default when nobody appeared for either of the parties. Learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand also wants the matter to be re-heard by the Writ Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are constrained to set-aside the order under appeal and remand the matter for fresh decision by the Writ Court after hearing the parties. Since the writ petitioner has superannuated on 31.1.2011 and now the issue involved is from where he shall receive the post retiral benefits, i.e. Bihar or Jharkhand, in our view the writ petition may be considered and decided expeditiously. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Mkc/ (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)