IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA L.P.A.No.1239 of 2009 The Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Supaul., P.S.& District- Supaul. ….(Respondent no.5)/ Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Supaul. …. Respondents/Respondents 1st set. 4. The Chairman, Nagar Parishad, Supaul, P.S.and District- Supaul. ….Respondent-Respondent 2nd Set. 5. Yadubanshi Yadav, son of Late Subalal Yadav, resident of Ward No.7, P.O. + P.S. + District – Supaul ... Respondents-Respondent 3rd Set. ----------- For the appellant : Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents-State: Mr. Prahalad Kumar Bhagat, A.C. to A.A.G.V ------ 03. 17.03.2010 I.A.No.6114 of 2009 Heard Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Supaul, and Mr. Prahalad Kumar Bhagat, learned counsel for the State. Before adverting to the issue of notice on the question of condonation, we have thought it apt to address ourselves on the merits of the lis in question. The writ petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this court in CWJC no.2898 of 2009 contending, inter alia, that he was initially - 2 - appointed on the post of legal clerk on 26.09.1961 under the Nagar Parishad, Supaul and he attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.2001. His case before the writ court was that after his retirement, no post retiral dues has been paid to him. A communication dated 02.01.2009 addressed by the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Supaul to the State Government raising a claim for payment of retiral dues of other employees including the name of the petitioner was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. After perusal of the same, the learned Single Judge had passed the following order:- “Keeping the above in mind as well the order dated 17.2.2009 passed in CWJC No. 2289 of 2009 which is the case of Gulabia Devi v. State of Bihar, the writ application is disposed of with a direction that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 will do the needful in the case of petitioner also.” In our considered opinion, the order passed by the learned Single Judge has really not determined the rights of grant of retiral dues of the writ petitioner. What has been done by the learned Single Judge that the respondent nos. 4 and 5 shall do the needful in the case of the writ petitioner keeping in view the order passed in C.W.J.C.no.2289 of 2009. - 3 - In view of the aforesaid, there is no warrant to issue notice in the application for condonation of delay and, accordingly, the application for condonation of delay stands rejected and as a logical corollary the appeal also stands dismissed in limine. Sunil (Dipak Misra, C.J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)