IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.673 of 2008 RAM NANDAN MAHTO Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 01/12/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was suspended on 30.8.1998. He challenged the same in C.W.J.C. No.13483/04. On 12.4.2005 this Court noticed from Annexure-A to the counter affidavit that the suspension has been vacated and full pay for suspension period has been directed to be paid. The aforesaid Annexure-A is enclosed as Annexure- 2 to the present writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance thereto a sum of Rs.1,28,000/- has been paid, but that a sum of Rs.1,12,000/- was still due. The petitioner represented for the same before the Sub-divisional Officer, Pupari by filing petition No.320/05 on 6.6.2005 itself. He stated specifically in paragraph-3 that opposite party No.2 named in that application was demanding 10% gratification for recovering the dues. That has 2 evoked no response leading to the filing of the present writ petition with the grievance that legitimate dues were not being fully paid. Let the District Magistrate examine the grievance of the petitioner in light of his representation dated 6.6.2005 in petition No.320/05 submitted before the Sub-divisional Officer, Pupari and dispose of the same appropriately in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him when it is expected that if the District Magistrate finds justification in the claim of the petitioner, not only shall the legitimate dues be paid, but appropriate administrative/penal action shall also be taken against the official concerned. The application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)