IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8801 of 2009 RAM NAMUNA SINGH, Son of Late Narsingh Singh, C/o Smt. Asha Sinha, resident of Mohalla – Naya Gaon, P.O. Gulzarbagh, P.S. – Alamganj, District – Patna. ……… Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Engineer-in-chief, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Under Secretary, Government of Bihar, R.C. Department, Bihar, Patna. 6. The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Chapra Division, Chapra. 7. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Biharsharif. 8. The Sub-divisional Officer, Road Construction Department, Chapra. …….. Respondents. ----------- 02/ 28.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the recovery of Rs.1,27,820.59 from his retiral dues. According to the petitioner he has already submitted the vouchers showing execution of the works for which he had taken advance. Highlighting the aforesaid grievance petitioner had filed C.W.J.C. No. 5228 of 2001 which was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to take steps before the departmental authorities for redressal of his grievance. In the light of such liberty petitioner filed representation which was disposed of under order dated 14.5.2003, Annexure-10. In the light of the order dated 14.5.2003 petitioner submitted his further clarification vide representation dated 27.5.2003, Annexure-11, copy whereof was also sent to the Executive Engineer under registered post the receipt showing dispatch of the said representation through registered post is - 2 - also appended with the writ application. 3. Learned counsel submits that the Executive Engineer has not yet disposed of the representation of the petitioner dated 27.5.2003 and the amount which has been erroneously recovered from the petitioner is still lying with the State government as the request to refund the same is not being considered. 4. Let the Executive Engineer consider the claim of the petitioner as set out in his representation dated 27.5.2003 in accordance with law and pass specific order as to why the refund of Rs.1,27,820.59 be not allowed to the petitioner and if the Executive Engineer is satisfied that the said amount has been rightly recovered from the petitioner, then he should indicate reasons therefor in his order. Necessary order in this regard be passed by the Executive Engineer as early as possible in any case within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 5. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. DKS/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)