ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this writ petition, the petitioner's case is that he retired from service admittedly on 31-1-1997 as Upper Division Assistant (Selection Grade) from the Bihar State Electricity Board. After his retirement his pension has been fixed at Rs.1370/- basic and C.D.A. Rs. 2028/- and it comes to an amount of Rs.3398/- per month. The petitioner as per rule applied for commutation of 1/3rd of his pension for the purpose of construction of a house. He made such application on 26-5-1997 which is admittedly within one• year of his retirement. The petitioner's case is that he applied in the prescribed form and the said application of the petitioner was received in the office of the respondent Board and in token thereof a receipt was granted . The petitioner has annexed the said application for commutation as Annexure-1 to the writ petition as also its receipt as Annexure-1/1. The original of the receipt has also been produced before the Court and the same has also been shown to the learned counsel for the respondent Board. Learned counsel for the respondent Board has however, denied the existence of such receipt in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit. The statement that the receipt dated 26-5-1997 has not been annexed with the writ petition is not correct. The said receipt is annexed with the writ petition and, as stated above, has been made Annexure-1/1. It appears that the said receipt was granted to the petitioner from the Bailey Road office, which is the Head Office of the respondent Board. This Court does not find any reason to disbelieve the petitioner's case about the said receipt since the original has been produced with the stamp of the Board. Therefore, this Court is not impressed with the averment made in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit whereby the existence of the receipt has been disputed. Learned counsel for the respondent Board has submitted with reference to the Government clarification that in matters of commutation of pension, the person concerned must apply within one year from the date of retirement and if he fails to apply within one year, the employee will have to be subjected to the medical examination as required under the Bihar Pension (Commutation) Rules. This Court funds that the said clarification of the Government will not apply in the facts of this case when the petitioner admittedly applied within one year of the retirement for commutation of his pension. Therefore the petitioner should not be subjected to medical examination for the purpose of granting commutation of pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bageshwari Prasad Sinha Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 1994 (2) PLJR Page 13 . In paragraph 4 of the said judgment, in a similar matter, learned judges of the Division Bench made it clear that were an application for commutation was made within time but was not processed within one year owing to some laches and neligence on the part of the concerned authority, the requirements of the employee to submit for medical examination should be relaxed. In the instant case, admittedly, the application was filed within one year and the same has not been processed by the authorities concerned for their laches and for the same the petitioner cannot be asked to appear for medical examination. Therefore, following the ratio in the said case of Bageshwari Prasad Sinha (Supra), this court directs that the respondents authorities must process the petitioner's application for commutation of pension without asking him to submit himself to the medical examination. This writ petition is. therefore, disposed of with the direction upon the authorities of the respondent Board to process the petitioner's application for commutation of 1/3rd pension and grant him the commuted value within three months from the date of receipt/service of copy of this order upon respondent No.2. There will be no order as to cost.