JUDGMENT : AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI, J. 1. The Court is inclined to condone the delay of 142 days in moving the appeal under Letters Patent. I. A. No. 8248 of 2015 is allowed. 2. The writ application, namely, 1581 of 2008 was filed by the private-respondent no. 1. Her husband was a Junior Engineer, who died in a road accident on 21.07.2004, while on official duty. After the death of husband of the respondent, since death-cum-retrial dues were not being settled, she filed C. W. J. C. No. 4690 of 2005, wherein an interim order was passed for payment of entire retrial dues. When the order was not complied, contempt application, namely, M. J. C. No. 2365 of 2006, was moved, which finally stood disposed off on 04.12.2007. In the contempt application, it emerged that the State authorities, the appellant here, had passed an order of recovery of a large amount of money against husband of the private-respondent for advances, which the husband had taken for different work. The wife was permitted to challenge the said order and, therefore, the writ, in question. 3. The Learned Single Judge considered the entirety of the matter and in absence of any Rule, having been placed before him by the State authorities, which could empower them to effect such recovery from the post-retiral dues of the widow, came to a considered opinion that such recovery could not be made against the wife. 4. The Court placed a pointed question to the counsel for the State to place the necessary provision or the law, under which such recovery could be made against the widow from the retrial dues. The Court has not been shown any provision. 5. There are powers, which are granted under the Bihar Pension Rules. One of them has been noted by the Learned Single Judge, which is Rule 43 (b) and the other being Rule 139. Since none of these provisions were invoked against the husband of the writ petitioner, the Learned Single Judge has rightly quashed the order and gave a direction for payment and settlement of the rightful claim, including post-retiral dues. The time-frame of two months was fixed. Failure would have had further consequences of payment of 9 per cent interest from the date the recovery till the date of payment. 6. The time-frame of two months was fixed. Failure would have had further consequences of payment of 9 per cent interest from the date the recovery till the date of payment. 6. The State had created the predicament for itself by non-application of mind to the facts as well as the law, therefore, the order of Learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference in the given facts and circumstances. 7. In absence of any infirmity emerging from the rational and reasoning of such direction, no interference is warranted with the impugned order, dated 30.03.2015, passed in the writ application. 8. The appeal is dismissed, being devoid of merit.