IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4419 of 2007 Manan Kumar Verma, S/o late Sheo Nath Prasad, Mohalla: Adarash Nagar, P.O. & P.S. : Samastipur, District- Samastipur. ……… Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Road Construction Department, Vishwashariya Bhawan, Patna. 3. Chief Engineer, Road Construction, Deptt. (communication) North Bihar Zone, Darbhanaga at Laharyasarai. 4. Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Deptt., Road Circle Darbhanga at Laheriasarai. 5. Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Samastipur. 6. Accountant General (A& E) District- Patna. 7. Accounts Officer, (Finance), Samastipur. 8. Treasury Officer, Samastipur. ………. Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Hriday Prasad Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar For the State : Mr. P.K. Sinha, S. C. 21 For the A.G. : Mr. Madhuresh Prasad. ----------------- 04 18.12.2008 The petitioner superannuated in the year 2001. It is alleged that in 2006 certain deductions were made on account of alleged wrong fixation of pay scale. This has brought the petitioner to this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that before ordering the deductions the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of hearing and in any event the extra payment if any not having occasioned because of any fraud, deceit or any act on part of the petitioner and the same cannot be recovered from the petitioner at this late stage. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand rightly points out that in fact effectively deductions were made in the year 2002, itself 2 to which petitioner had not objected. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in fact no reason is discernible justifying the deductions and it is because of that he could not effectively move the authorities in that regard. Be that as it may, it is clear that the adjustments were made from the petitioner’s dues way back in the year 2002 with certain small additional deductions recently made. I consider it proper that the petitioner should file a detailed representation before the Superintending Engineer (respondent no. 4), who shall consider the same and disposed it of by a speaking order and the order shall be forwarded to the petitioner within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order before the Superintending Engineer, in case, a consequence of finding to be recorded by the Superintending Engineer. Petitioner is entitled to any money the same shall be paid to him within four weeks thereafter. With this observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Trivedi/ ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)