IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3481 of 2006 USHA SINGH wife of Late Dr. Rajeshwar Pd. Sinha, resident of village- Sikandarpur, Police Station Masaurhi, P. O. Lahsuna, District Patna, A/P residing at C/o Sri Harihar Pd. Singh of Tarkeshwar Nath Path Mohalla Chiraiyatand, P. S. Kankarbagh, P. O., G.P.O. Patna District Patna…. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary –cum- Commissioner, Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner Health, Education and Family Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Deputy Secretary, Health Department Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Civil Surgeon cum-Chief Medical Officer, Hazipur. 6. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Banka. 7. The Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Kheshar, Belhar, District Banka. 8. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 9. The Deputy Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 10. The Deputy Secretary, Finance (Personal Claim and Fixation Cell) Department, Patna. 11. The Treasury Officer, Banka. 12. The Treasury Officer, Hazipur. 13. The Treasury Officer, Patna Secretariat Treasury, Patna. 14. The Director, Provident Fund Bihar Pant Bhawan, Patna. 15. The District Provident Fund Officer, Hazipur, (Vaishali). …. Respondents. ----------- 4. 14.05.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. In this writ petition, the claim of the petitioner is confined to payment of certain insurance amount under the Bihar State Government Employees Rule, 1997. The claim of the petitioner is that on the basis of deduction made from his salary he would be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-. 2 Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State however submits that the petitioner himself was Drawing and Disbursing Officer and if he himself deducted from his salary a sum of Rs.120/- from per month for payment in the aforementioned scheme that would not bind the State to make payment of such amount specially when the scheme itself envisages payment of only Rs.60 per month. This Court cannot go into this aspect for a simple reason that this Insurance Scheme is not part of retiral benefit inasmuch as the petitioner had invested his money in a government scheme and therefore for such repayment he has take recourse to the normal procedure known in law i.e. civil suit specially when there is also a dispute between the parties as with regard to amount of monthly deduction and consequential entitlement. That being so, this writ petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)