IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.242 of 2008 RAMESH PANDEY SON OF LATE JAGANNATH PANDEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE + P.O.- NAGPUR, P.S. RAJPUR, DISTRICT BUXAR, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT MOHALLA GAURAKSHNI, NALA PAR, GALI NO. 10U, P.O. + P.S. SASARAM, DISTRICT- ROHTAS.. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SONE BHAWAN, VEER CHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, SONE BHAWAN, VEER CHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA 3. CHIEF ADMINSITRATION, HEADQUARTERS, BIHAR STATE FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED, SONE BHAWAN, VEER CHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, BIHAR STATE FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, ROHTAS, SASARAM **** 4 04.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amarendra Narain Rai, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation. The grievances of the petitioner is that a sum of Rs. 58380.70 has been recovered from the retrial dues of the petitioner on the alleged ground of interest over the defalcated amount of Rs. 76,130.35 said to have been caused to the Corporation while the petitioner was posted as an Assistant in the office of the Corporation at Siwan, Aurangabad and Rohtas. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said defalcated amount alleged to be caused due to the petitioner was deposited/ recovered from the petitioner’s salary in the year 2000 itself, and as such, no - 2 - amount of interest is payable by the petitioner after the aforesaid deposit made in the year 2000. However, the Corporation has recovered the interest for the period subsequent thereto as would be appearing from the letter of the Corporation contained in memo no. 8461 dated 16th October, 2008 as contained in Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation submits that the controversy raised by the petitioner is merely a matter of accounting and checking of the account. However, the grievance of the petitioner shall be considered as per law without delay. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for redressal of the grievances, as raised in this writ application, the petitioner proposes to file a representation before the respondent no. 2. In this view of the matter, it is directed that in case such representation is filed by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today along with the certified copy of the present order as also the copy of the relevant documents in support of the claim, the above respondent shall consider the grievances as raised in the representation in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of four months on receipt of - 3 - such representation. It goes without saying that in case the respondent no. 2 upon consideration finds that the petitioner has already deposited the amount in the year 2000, no further interest is payable by the petitioner after the deposit of the said amount. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)