IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.495 of 2010 Dulal Bagchi S/O Late Priye Nath Bagchi, C/O Sri Shyamal Ghosh, R/O Moh.- Punama, P.O. and P.S.- Bajirganj, Distt.- Gaya, Permanent resident of Moh.- Gowal Bigha, Refuge Colony, P.S. and Distt.- Gaya --- Petitioner ----- Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Administrator, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Birchand Patel Path, Pariwahan Bhawan, Patna, Bihar 3. The Chief of Operation-in-Incharge Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Birchand Patel Path, Pariwahan Bhawan, Patna, Bihar 4. The Managing Director B.S.R.T.C. B.P. Path, Pariwahan Bhawan, Patna, Bihar 5. The Chief Account Officer, B.S.R.T.C. Pariwahan Bhawan, Patna, Bihar 6. The Chief Mechanical Engineer Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Birchand Patel Path, Pariwahan Bhawan, Patna, Bihar 7. The Divisional Manager, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Divisional Office, Gaya, Distt.- Gaya 8. The Divisional Account Officer, B.S.R.T.C. Divisional Office, Gaya 9. The Depo Superintendent, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Gaya, Distt.- Gaya ------ Respondents ---- Respondents. ----------- 2. 23.3.2011 Heard Mr. Satya Prakash Singh for the appellant, Mr. Amish Kumar, learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel No.4 for the State of Bihar, and Mr. S.R. Sharan for the Bihar Road Transport Corporation. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 2.2.2010, passed by a learned Single Judge of 2 this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 37 of 2010, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The appellant was in the services of the respondent Corporation. When the appellant was approaching completion of 60 years of age, the Corporation had received certain informations as a result of which he was subjected to the medical test for determination of age by the Medical Board constituted by the Corporation. The Medical Board was of the opinion that he was of 60 years of age on 17.12.1998, the date of his medical test. The Corporation accepted the report and took his age to be 60 years in December, 1998. In view of the position that 58 years was the age of superannuation for the employees of the category of the appellant, the Corporation issued order dated 12.2.1999, whereby it was declared that he would be deemed to have superannuated from the services of the Corporation on 31.12.1996 (A/N). In view of the position that the appellant had worked beyond 58 years because of his collusion with others, in the Corporation’s office. It was further directed that excess amount of salary beyond 58 3 years shall be recovered from the pensionery benefits. The appellant challenged the order by preferring connected C.W.J.C. No. 37 of 2010, which was lodged before this Court on 4.1.2010. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of unexplained delay and raising a stale claim. We entirely agree with the order of the learned Single Judge. We do not find any merit in this appeal. 3. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar,J. ) ( S. P. Singh, J.)