IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.101 of 2007 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Minor Irrigation Department, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. Joint Secretary (Budget), Minor Irrigation Department, New Secretariat, Patna. 4. The Project Co-Ordinator, Tubewell Section, Minor Irrigation Department, Bishbairaiya Bhawan, Fourth Floor, Patna (Bihar). 5. The Chief Engineer, Tube Well Section, South Division, Sheikhpura, Patna (Bihar). 6. the Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Tube Well Section, Mithapur, Patna (Bihar). 7. The Executive Engineer, Tube-well Division, Belan Bazar, Munger. 8. The Sub-divisional Officer (S.D.O.), Tube-Well Section, Lakhisarai. 9. The Junior Engineer, Tube-Well Section, Lakhisarai. 10. The Executive Engineer, Tube-Well Division, Bettiah (West Champaran). ….Respondent/Petitioner. Versus Mahadeo Prasad Singh, son of Late Ram Subhe Singh, resident of Village-Maithi, P.S. Gayaghat, P.O.-Maithi, District- Muzaffarpur, at present resident at Lal Darbaja-Kamal Baban Road House of Sadhu Sharan Singh, P.O.-Munger, P.S.-Kotwali, District- Munger. …..Petitioner/Respondent. ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, S.C.16. For the respondent : None. ----- 05/ 27.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This petition has been filed for review of order dated 15.06.2006 by which a bench of this court allowed CWJC No.10007 of 2002 and the respondents-authorities were directed to pay the arrears of salary for the period concerned with interest at the fixed rate from the due date till the date of payment. 3. Now, learned counsel for the review petitioners, who were respondents in the writ petition, has claimed that the amount of interest was not payable to the writ petitioner as a huge amount was due against him. Learned counsel for the review petitioners - 2 - submits that he had paid the amount of arrears of salary as directed by the said court. 4. From the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the materials on record, it is quite apparent that there is no error apparent on the face of record and the calculation which is being brought by the authorities in this review petition was also available to them when the writ petition was pending, but they did not bring it on record for reasons best known to them, although full opportunity was available to them. In the said circumstances, the review petitioners failed to produce any material which were not available with them at the time of passing of the order sought to be reviewed. 5. In the said circumstances, no occasion of review is made out and, accordingly, this civil review petition is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)