IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1438 of 2009 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE (PLANT PROTECTION) BIHAR, PATNA 3. JUNIOR PLANT PROTECTION OFFICER ROHTAS AT SASARAM 4. JUNIOR PLANT PROTECTION OFFICER MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. SHYAM SUNDAR PRASAD S/O LATE BINDESHWARI PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- SIPAHI TOLA, P.S.- KHAGANCHI GHAT, DISTT.- PURNIA ----------- 9 11/03/2011 This letters patent appeal is against the order dated 23.1.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 18215 of 2008 filed by the respondent herein claiming the payment of subsistence allowance for the period of suspension as the same was denied to him by the employer department. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties disposed of the writ petition with a direction to afford payment of subsistence allowance if already not paid to the petitioner respondent herein in accordance with law. The main ground urged before us by the learned Standing Counsel is that no opportunity was given to file counter affidavit before the learned Single Judge. But however, the record shows that the writ petition was filed in the year 2008 and the same has been taken up on 23.1.2009. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition after hearing the counsel 2 representing the State also. Hence, we are not in agreement with the contention raised by the Standing Counsel that no opportunity was given to file counter affidavit. Secondly it is stated by the counsel for the appellant that the respondent has not reported to his head office. But however, the respondent has submitted on affidavit in support of the C.W.J.C. No. 18215 of 2008 that he has reported at the head office. He joined in the headquarters on the date fixed i.e. on 1.4.2008 and memo of charge has been served upon him by the Deputy Director (Plant Protection) who has been appointed as conducting officer . A certificate dated 27.10.2008 was also issued to the respondent no. 4 which was annexed in the writ petition stating that he has not gainfully employed any where. In view of the above facts, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was perfectly right in holding that the subsistence allowance is to be paid to the petitioner-respondent and as such the impugned order needs no interference. Accordingly, this letters patent appeal is dismissed. (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) avin