Judgment Barin Ghosh and Jayanandan N.Singh JJ. 1. The husband of the respondent-petitioner was an employee of the State Government. He was deputed to the appellant-Corporation in the year 1974, where he worked until 1982 and thereupon was repatriated to his parent Department in the State Government. While serving his parent Department in the Government, the husband of the petitioner-respondent died on 12th March, 1998 in harness. Petitioner-respondent then claimed payment of death-cum-retiral dues of her husband. The same was withheld and a letter of the appellant-Corporation dated 22nd September, 1988 was forwarded to her, whereby and whereunder it was contended that a sum of Rs. 1,00,514.96 is recoverable by the Corporation from the husband of the respondent-petitioner. The action of the State Government in not releasing the death-cum-retiral dues of the husband of the petitioner and issue of the said letter by the appellant-Corporation was challenged in the writ petition. Such challenge succeeded and by the judgment and order under appeal this Court held that the letter of the appellant-Corporation dated 22nd September, 1988 cannot and should not come in the way of the petitioner-respondent getting payment of the death-cum-retiral dues of her husband. 2. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been filed, whereby and whereunder the appellant is contending that the said sum of Rs. 1,00,514.96 is recoverable from the dues of the petitioner-respondent on account of death-cum-retiral payment of her husband. 3. In the counter affidavit filed to the writ petition, the appellant had contended that such outstanding became due and payable by the husband of the petitioner-respondent to the Corporation in view of failure on the part of the husband of the petitioner-respondent to adjust advance of such sum obtained by him. It was stated that while the husband of the petitioner-respondent was repatriated to his parent Department, in the L.P.C. it was indicated that the said sum is due, with a request to recover the same from the salaries of the husband of the petitioner-respondent, but until the death of the husband of the petitioner-respondent no such recovery had ; been made. 4. In the counter affidavit, though such a plea had been taken, but no attempt had been made to substantiate the same. 4. In the counter affidavit, though such a plea had been taken, but no attempt had been made to substantiate the same. In a writ proceeding, it is obligatory on the part of the parties to put forward evidence in support of their pleas and that appears to be the basic difference in between a civil suit and a writ petition. Despite making such pleadings, it is unfortunate that the receipt granted by the husband of the petitioner-respondent acknowledging payment of advance was not produced. Even the advance account of the husband of the petitioner-respondent was also not produced. Further, no attempt was made to produce the L.P.C. of the husband of the petitioner-respondent. In such circumstances, there is no irrationality in the ultimate conclusion of the learned Judge contained in the order under appeal. However, we make it clear that the above judgment as well as the judgment and order under appeal will not stand in the way, in the event the appellant files a suit for recovery of non-adjusted advance alleged to have been given to the husband of the petitioner-respondent. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid observations.