1. This writ petition has been filed by the widow of Late Gauri Shankar Choubey, who died in harness on 20.6.1996 while posted as Marketing Officer at Hilsa in Nalanda district. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Government, contained in letter no. 3764 dated 4.9.2001 (Annexure14), issued by the Deputy Secretary, Food, Supply and Commerce Department, Government of Bihar, wherein it is stated that as per the information received from the District Magistrate, Nalanda, a sum of Rs.31,823/- against the advance given to the deceased while posted at Hajipur Subdivision is recoverable, besides the dues amount as reported by the State Food Corporation against the deceased.

2. The details with respect to advance mentioned in the said letter are of 3.2.1982, 14.9.1983, 19.12.1984, 19.12.1984 and 17.11.1989. The first amount of Rs.200/- is shown as advance for doing Pairvi in the case and the second amount of Rs.250/- is shown as advance for relief work. The remaining three amounts have been shown as advance in connection with election work.

3. The petitioner is also aggrieved by letter no. 2162 dated 5.4.2002 of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, contained in Annexure 15, wherein it is alleged that during his posting on deputation at Patna as Assistant Godown Manager, there was loss of foodgrains to the tune of Rs. 19,036.45 and is recoverable and besides this he has taken Rs. 1,000/- as advance, about which it is alleged that he neither submitted bill nor returned the said amount and, as such, the same is also recoverable. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 1,94,264.03 is recoverable on the basis of compound interest calculated up to February, 1999. It is further stated that as per the decision taken by the present Board of Directors, 18% simple interest is to be charged and accordingly a sum of Rs. 62,586.17 paise was found recoverable up to 10.2.1999 and finally by the said letter, a sum of Rs.82,622.62 paise has been found recoverable.

4. Earlier, on 31.8.2004 the matter was adjourned on the request of the learned counsel for the respondents for listing in the next week and meanwhile, the respondents were directed to re-consider the grievance of the petitioner and take appropriate decision afresh keeping in view the law and the facts and circumstances of the case. On 8.9.2004 when the matter was heard and order was reserved, Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation fairly submitted that the Corporation shall recall the impugned order (Annexure 15) with liberty to take any other legal action as permissible in law. Such grievance of the petitioner in so far as against Annexure 15 is concerned, that stands redressed as obviously no action is permissible either under rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules or even the money suit is barred as the claim obviously relate to the period beyond three years and also in view of the law settled by this Court in the case of Radha Jha V/s. State of Bihar, reported in 2003(1) PLJR 679.

5. In so far as the grievance against Annexure 14 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the same is also fit to be quashed on the sole ground that the recovery of the alleged outstanding advance taken by the deceased, for which neither any proceeding was initiated nor any action was taken during the lifetime of the deceased Government servant, is not permissible from the death-cum-retiral dues payable to the widow in view of the law settled by this Court in the case of Radha Jha (supra).

6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State and its officials (respondents no. 3, 4 and 7), the details about the payments made/sanction accorded only in August, 2004 i.e., after eight long years have been furnished and it is stated that as to the revised family pension and revised gratuity, the same have been sent to the appropriate authority for proper sanction. In paragraphs 13 and 14 of the said counter affidavit it is stated that the amount of R