IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8688 of 2007 SHRI LAL CHAND son of Late Babu Deo Lal Rai, resident of village Raidih, P.O. Katesar, Police Station, Bihta, District- Patna Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Electricity Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Electric Executive Engineer, Central Electric Supply Division, Arrah(Rural) 4. The Electric Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Bihta (Patna) 5. The Director, General Provident Fund, Directorate, Finance Department, Pant Bhawan, Patna, Bihar 6. The Deputy Secretary, Finance Department, Pant Bhawan, Patna, Bihar 7. The District General Provident Office Bhojpur, (Arrah) ----------- 3 14.10.2009 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the B.S.E.B. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has come before this Court praying for payment of the balance amount of his retiral benefits. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Board and in paragraph 10 thereof the entire payments made to the petitioner has been sufficiently explained. The details includes dues towards revised gratuity amount, revised leave 2 encashment and arrears of revised pay scale as claimed by the petitioner. It is further stated that as per policy decision the commutation of the pension of any employee was not made due to financial crunch. It is also stated that a sum of Rs. 23081/- was recovered from the gratuity amount of the petitioner being the excess payment made to him on account of wrong fixation of pay. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a feeble attempt to question the said recovery. This Court cannot go into the said issue for the reason that the petitioner herein had approached before this Court by filing a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 9722 of 2004 for payment of his retiral benefits and which was disposed of by a common order dated 23.8.2004. By reason of the non-compliance of the order passed in the said writ petition, M.J.C. came to be filed giving rise to M.J.C. No. 2772 of 2004 but none appeared to press the said contempt application and the same was dismissed on the statement of the learned counsel for the Board that the order of the Court was complied. No attempt was made at that stage by the petitioner to question the 3 recovery, as it does not appear from any of the earlier orders passed in the case of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, nothing survives in the present writ application and is disposed of in the light of the statements made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J. )