IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14722 of 2010 RAJESHWAR SINGH SON OF LATE YADUVANSHI SINGH RESIDENT OF HATHITOLA, P.O. CHELATOR, P.S. MANER, DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. ZILA PARISHAD,PATNA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER-CUM- CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILA PARISHAD, PATNA. ----------- 02. 06.09.2010 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate for the respondent – Zila Parishad. The petitioner is aggrieved by recovery of Rs. 70,105/- from the retiral dues sanctioned as per Memo no. 53 dated 24th of April 2010 (Annexure-1). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner continued to serve the respondent –Parishad on the Class – IV post till 8th of January 2010 when he was served with the notice contained in memo no. 315 dated 8th of January 2010 vide Annexure- 2 informing that he stood retired on 30th of April 2009. It is further submitted that petitioner is an illiterate person and served the respondent –Parishad till he was informed by Annesure- 2. Notwithstanding the above, since petitioner had worked under the respondent –Parishad till 8th of January 2010, it is not justified on the part of 2 the respondent Parishad to recover the amount of salary which was paid to the petitioner after 30th of April 2009 which according to the authority comes to Rs. 70,105/- in absence of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner and even without issuing any notice. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Parishad submits that the claim of the petitioner needs to be verified from the records. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for expeditious disposal of the pending claims, petitioner proposes to file a representation before the respondent no. 2. In view of the above, in case such representation stating details of his grievances is filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks along with the certified copy of the present order as also the copy of the relevant documents, if any, in support of the claim, the representation of the petitioner be considered in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation by a reasoned order Upon consideration, in case it is found that there is no fault/misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner in continuing in the service even after the date of his superannuation i.e. 30th of April 2009, the 3 aforesaid amount of Rs. 70,105/- which was recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner, be refunded back to the petitioner preferably within a period of two months on passing of the order on his representation. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Jagdish/ ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)