Jay Kumar v. P.K. Rai And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1964 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16817 of 2013 ======================================================

1. Jay Kumar Son of Late Baleshwar Sharma resident of Village+ P.OSarai, P.S- Maner, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. P.k. Rai, the Chairman Bihar State Electricity Board Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

2. Sandip Paundrik, The Secretary Bihar State Electricity Board Vidyut Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna.

3. Rajendra Pandey, The General Manager- Cum- Chief Engineer, Tirhut Regional, Electricity Board, Muzaffarpur.

4. Rajendra Pandey The Electical Superintending Engineer, Electrical Board, Tirhut Circle Muzaffarpur.

5. Rameshwar Singh The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Hajipur, Vaishali.

.... .... opposite parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 01-04-2015 Rejoinder to the show cause is filed on behalf of the petitioner.

It is an admitted position that interest on G.S.S. and G.P.F. has already been paid to the petitioner but so far as other heads are concerned, admittedly, no statutory interest has been

paid.

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties submits that according to the rules of Board, the interest on delayed payment of G.S.S. and G.P.F. is paid and except the aforesaid two heads, no interest is paid on delayed payment and that is the reason the statutory interest has not been paid to the petitioner on other heads.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that according to memo P.C.-2-1-16/79/3155 dated 07.11.1981, the statutory interest on delayed payment of all the retiral dues is paid.

Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that memo P.C.-2-1-16/79/3155 dated 07.11.1981 has not been adopted by the Board/Company and, therefore, the aforesaid memo does not have any binding effect on the Board/Company. It is not clear from the materials available on the record as to whether the aforesaid memo dated 07.11.1981 has been adopted by the Board/Company or not and, therefore, in the aforesaid circumstance, petitioner should file representation before the opposite party no. 3 raising his grievances and quoting relevant provisions within a month from today and if he does so, the opposite party no. 3/concerned authority shall dispose of

representation of the petitioner within three months from the date of its filing by a reasoned order.

In the aforesaid manner, this petition stands disposed of giving liberty to petitioner to file a fresh contempt petition, if needed, after disposal of his representation. (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) SHAHZAD/- U