Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The appellant is aggrieved against the order dated 15th September, 2008 by which the petitioner's writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.3660 of 1997(R) has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

3. In the writ petition the petitioner claimed that the petitioner's father was Ex-M.L.A. and therefore, he was entitled to the pension under the Bihar Legislature (Members' Salaries, Allowances and Pension) Act, 1960. Learned Single Judge after considering Section 10A(3) of the said Act of 1960 observed that the petitioner's father Ex-M.L.A. was in service prior to becoming M.L.A. and he was getting pension which was more pension than the pension available for the Ex M.L.A. and in view of above Section 10A(3), petitioner's father was not entitle to the pension. Not only this, the petitioner's father in his lifetime for 13 years did not claim such pension.

4. However, learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that the petitioner's father was in service and he was getting pension in his life time and after death petitioner's mother i.e. widow of Ex M.L.A. was entitled to the family pension. Learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that one Writ Petition (S) No. 369 of 2001 was filed by the petitioner's mother, widow of the Ex-M.L.A. but that was dismissed vide order dated 19th February, 2001 and admittedly, that dismissal order has not been challenged. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the writ petition was dismissed because the daughter of the petitioner also filed the(present) writ petition.

5. We find from the pleadings of the present writ petition i.e., C.W.J.C. No.3660 of 1997(R) that the petitioner, daughter of deceased Ex-M.L.A. filed this writ petition only for the purpose of getting pension under Bihar Legislature (Members' Salaries, Allowances and Pension) Act, 1960 and she did not pray for any family pension benefit for her mother on account of past services of Ex-M.L.A. who may have been getting any pension as mentioned in the impugned order.

6. Be that as it may, we are of the considered opinion that the daughter has no locus standi to file present petition and even then learned Single Judge has carefully considered the legal position and held that the petitioner's father himself was not entitled to the pension under the Act of 1960. The issue of family pension after death of petitioner's father is concerned, for that purpose, the petitioner's mother, the widow of Ex-M.L.A. did not file writ petition and earlier preferred Writ Petition (S) No. 369 of 2001 has been dismissed.

7. In view of above, we do not find any merit in this L.P.A. Accordingly, this L.P.A. is dismissed.