Ramjee Rao v. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15585 of 2015 ====================================================== Ramjee Rao S/o Late Ganga Bishnu Rao, resident of Village- Makshudpur, P.S.- Khizer Sarai, District- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Biddyut Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna.

2.

The Finance Controllers, Bihar State Electricity Board, Biddyut Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna. (South Bihar Power Holding Company). 3.

The Deputy General Manager cum Electrical Superintendibg Engineer, Magadh Circle, Gaya, District- Gaya (South Bihar Power Holding Company).

4.

The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Gaya Electrical Circle, DistrictGaya. (South Bihar Power Holding Company). 5.

The Electrical Executive Engineer, Rural Electrical Supply Division, Gaya, District- Gaya. (South Bihar Power Holding Company). ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ravindra Kumar Sinha, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Dharmeshwar Mishra, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 18-10-2023

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief(s):- "1.That this writ application is being file in nature of writ of Certiorari, for quashing the order dated 31.7.2014 Passed by the Deputy General Manager cum Electrical Superintending Engineer, Magadh Electric Supply Circle, Gaya by which and whereunder the amount of over time of only 674 hours for the period between 9-96 to 5-07 was paid instead of salary of over Time of 6568 days for the period since October, 1996 to 31.7.2007. The petitioner further prayed that issue a writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus

Patna High Court CWJC No.15585 of 2015(2) dt.18-10-2023 2/2 directing the respondent authorities to pay the remaining period of over time i.e. 5894 hours for the period of October 1996 to 31.7.2007 with 9% interest per annum and for issuance of any appropriate writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions as your lordships may deem fit and proper."

2. The learned counsel for the respondent-Company has referred to paragraphs no.9 and 10 of the counter affidavit, filed in the present case to submit that a sum of Rs.30,676/- has already been paid to the petitioner as per the standing order of the respondents, while his representation dated 09.12.2014, for payment of further overtime remuneration has been rejected, inasmuch as there is no provision to make any further payment, apart from the amount already paid i.e. a sum of Rs.30,676/-.

3. The aforesaid contention, advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent-Company has not been refuted by the petitioner inasmuch as no rejoinder affidavit has been filed, hence I do not find any merit in the present writ petition.

4. Thus, the present writ petition stands dismissed. (Mohit Kumar Shah, J) sonal/- U