IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.935 of 2005 AJOY KUMAR son of late Ram Nandan Prasad, resident of village Kusumpatti, post office Kothia, police station Kamtal district Darbhanga, present residing at Brajnandan Bhawan, B. Area, Bangali Road, Mithapur, Patna 800001 Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Vishweshraiya Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna. 2. Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Vishweshraiya Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna. 3. Chief Engineer, Central Design Organization, Road Construction Department, DCO Building, Baily Road, Patna. 4. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Bihar, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Vishweshraiya Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna. 5. Executive Engineer, Road Division No.1, Road Construction Department, Jehanabad 6. Director General, Provident Fund, Finance Department, Pant Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna 7. District Provident Fund Officer, Jehanabad 8. Treasury Officer, Vishweshraiya Bhawan, Secretariat Treasury, Patna 9. Accountant General, Bihar, Veerchand Patel Marge, Patna ----------- For the appellant: Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, Advocate For the State: Mr. Rabindra Kumar Choudhary, GP- VII ----------- 4 20-04-2009 Heard the parties and perused the judgement and order of the writ court under appeal. On behalf of the appellant, who is writ petitioner, a grievance has been raised that no order for recovery should have been passed by the writ court without there being any such issue involved in the writ petition. He has submitted that the writ petition was filed in the year 2003 and commutation of pension was authorized and authority slip was issued on 21-10-04 during the pendency of the writ petition. Since the other relief sought by the writ petitioner had already been met by the authorities the writ petition should have been disposed of as infructuous or some other relief could have been granted to the writ petitioner by way of interest but no recovery should - 2 - have been ordered against the writ petitioner. Learned GP 7 appearing on behalf of the State submits that the judgement under appeal declares that the respondent authorities would be entitled to recover the excess amount of pension for particular period only in the light of rule 256 of Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. Considering the issue involved in the writ petition and the nature of the grievance raised by the appellant/writ petitioner, we find that in the light of submission advanced on behalf of writ petitioner the order under appeal needs simply to be substituted by an order that the writ petition has become infructuous and it be dismissed accordingly. Accordingly, we allow the appeal to that extent and dismiss the writ petition as infructuous. It is made clear that if any of the party is aggrieved on account of error in the order allowing the commutation of pension, it would be at liberty to take further action in the matter in accordance with law. BKS/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)