IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.99 of 2007 RAJDEO SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi, Advocate ---------------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --------- Dated, the 15th September, 2008. On 4th May, 2005, the appeal preferred by the applicant was disposed of by the following order: - “The appeal is being disposed of with an observation that if the appellant files a petition before the competent authority giving the details of the amount and shows that any amount is not due against him then the authority will consider the same and return the amount which has been received in excess.” 2. By means of this contempt application (M.J.C.), the applicant raises a grievance that although representation has been made to the competent authority for payment of excess amount that was deducted, yet no decision has been taken by respondent nos. 2 and thereby the excess amount wrongly deducted is yet to be paid to the petitioner. 3. In the order dated 4th May, 2005, no time frame has been fixed. Strictly speaking, therefore, case for contempt is not made out. However, we are satisfied that the respondent nos. 2 must - 2 - now take a decision on the representation made by the petitioner for alleged wrong deduction of an amount in the sum of Rs.1,17,409.00. 4. We, accordingly, dispose of the contempt application by the following order: - (i) The respondent no.2, namely, Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Gaya shall consider the representation made by the petitioner on 13th June, 2005 and pass appropriate order as early as possible and in no case later than four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. (ii) In case it is found that there was wrong deduction/adjustment from the retiral dues of the petitioner, the respondent no.2 shall ensure that the amount is paid to the petitioner immediately thereafter and in no case later than two weeks from the date of decision. (iii) If any adverse decision is taken by respondent no.2 on the representation made by the petitioner (Annexure-2), the petitioner shall be informed of such decision and he will be free to challenge such order in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. 5. M.J.C. stands disposed of. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-