Ramlochan Prasad v. Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6998 of 2017 ====================================================== Ramlochan Prasad Son of Late Santu Sah Resident of Village- Barmine, P.O. and P.S. Uchkagaon, District- Gopalganj, Retired Sub Inspector (Wireless), 138 Battalion, Border Security Force.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Union of India through Director General, Border Security Force, New Delhi. 2.

Pay and Accounts Officer, Central Pension Accounting Office, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Trikoot II Complex, Behind Hotel Hyatt Regencv, Bikaji Cama Place, New Delhi.

3.

Assistant General Manager, Centralised Pension Processing Centre, Administrative Office Building, 4thy Floor Judges Court Road, Patna800001. 4.

Manager, State Bank of India, Mirganj Branch, District- Gopalganj. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, Advocate For the SBI :

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the UOI :

Mr. Praveen Kumar Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 18-05-2020 The matter has been listed and heard vide video conferencing in view of the lock-down imposed on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned counsel for the Union of India and learned counsel for the State Bank of India.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has passed away during the pendency of the writ petition.

Patna High Court CWJC No.6998 of 2017 dt.18-05-2020 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the State Bank of India submitted that before the death of the petitioner, after the excess payment made to him was adjusted, his full pension was also restored.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has no instructions in the matter from the heirs of the petitioner.

6. Having regard to the aforesaid, the Court finds that when the writ petitioner has passed away and prior to that, after making adjustment of the wrongly paid excess amount, his full pension was restored; nothing further remains in the present writ application.

7. In view thereof, the writ petition stands disposed off. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P.Kumar/ Anand Kr.

AFR/NAFR U T