Patna High CourtCWJC/6989/2014disposed

Sunil Kumar Das v. The Bhart Sanchar Nigam Ltd. And ORS

2016-01-21Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6989 of 2014 =========================================================== SUNIL KUMAR DAS SON OF LATE SURAJ NARAYAN DAS RESIDENT OF DEVI MANDAP ROAD, P.S. SUKHDEONAGAR, P.O. HELAL, DISTRICT - RANCHI .... .... PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. THE BHART SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, (A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISES), THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, BHAGALPUR

2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, (CM - NW, OPS AND TX), BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, BHAGALPUR

3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (TRANS), OFFICE OF GM, TD, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, BHAGALPUR .... .... RESPONDENTS =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pravin Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 21-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent authorities to make payment claimed at Rs. 1,74,700/- for the works executed by the petitioner in terms of work order issued in his favour.

3. At the very outset learned counsel for the respondents refers to the counter affidavit and submits that the amount of the admitted dues of Rs. 1,53,271/- has been paid to the petitioner by cheque No. 443144 dated 10.04.2015 and the cheque has been received by the authorised person of the agency concerned.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even assuming

Patna High Court CWJC No.6989 of 2014 dt.21-01-2016 such payments having been made, the same fall short of the claim made by the petitioner, apart from the fact that such payment had been delayed as the bill for the claim was submitted as far back in the year 2011.

5. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances and that the claim of the petitioner has substantially been redressed, the writ petition stands disposed of. The petitioner shall always be at liberty to represent before the respondent authorities for any remaining claim in accordance with law.

(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran U