Bijoy Kumar Sinha v. The Chairman Bihar State Electricity Board Patna And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2155 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16112 of 2011 ====================================================== Bijoy Kumar Sinha, Son of Late Satya Narain Singh, R/o MohallaDamuchak, P.S. Kazimohammadpur, Distt- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna.

2. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna.

3. The General Manager cum Chief Engineer, Tirhut Electricity Board, Bhagwanpur, Muzaffarpur.

4.

The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Muzaffarpur Circle, Muzaffarpur.

5. The Electrical Executive Engineer Urban Maripur, Muzaffarpur.

6. The Clerk Office of Electrical Executive Engineer Urban, Maripur, Muzaffarpur.

.... .... Opp. Parties ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER 03-03-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties of the erstwhile Bihar State Electricity Board, now the Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Ltd.

The application has been filed for restoration of CWJC No. 16112 of 2011 which was filed for payment of retiral benefits under different heads.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Electricity Board to the writ application it was stated that all the different amounts had been paid and only the balance amount of gratuity exceeding Rs.3,50,000/- shall be paid to the petitioner along with

Patna High Court MJC No.2155 of 2015 (2) dt.03-03-2016 other employees of the Board in chronological order as per the decision of the Board.

In the reply to the counter affidavit filed in the writ application by the petitioner the aforesaid position was not disputed, except raising claim for payment of balance gratuity amount of Rs.3,01,272/-. Thus the stand of the petitioner was in accord with what had been stated by the Board that payment of balance amount of gratuity shall be made to the petitioner along with other employees of the Board in chronological order in view of the decision of the Board.

Thus no purpose can be served by restoring the writ application as nothing remains to be adjudicated. The restoration application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) spal/- U