Jai Mangal Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14975 of 2015 ====================================================== Jai Mangal Singh, Son of Late Ram Barai Singh, Resident of Village- Adarsh Gram- I, Kolhua Paigambarpur, P.S. Kanti, District Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The Additional Secretary, Energy Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

3. The Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd. (previously known as Bihar State Electricity Board), Patna through the Chairman-cum- Managing Director

4. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd. Patna

5. The Secretary, Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd., Patna

6. The Bihar State North Power Holding Company Ltd., Muzaffarpur through the Managing Director.

7. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, The Bihar State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Transmission Zone-II, Muzaffarpur

8. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Muzaffarpur Thermal Power Station, Kanti, Muzaffarpur

9. The Director Accounts, Muzaffarpur Thermal Power Station, Kanti, Muzaffarpur

10. The Chief Executive Officer Kanti, Power Generating Company Ltd., (previously known as Vaishali Power Generating Company Ltd.), Muzaffarpur Thermal Power Station, Kanti, Muzaffarpur

11. The Additional General Manager (HR), Kanti Power Generating Company Ltd., (previously known as Vaishali Power Generating Company Ltd.), Muzaffarpur Thermal Power Station, Kanti, Muzaffarpur ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh For the State :

Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to GA 12 For the Board : Mr Ajay Kumar Gautam For the NTPC : Mr Anil Kumar Sinha Mr Akash Keshav ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

Patna High Court CWJC No.14975 of 2015(6) dt.19-08-2017 2/2 ORAL ORDER 19-08-2017 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondents.

This Court is not willing to examine the issue whether the provision in clause 5(e) and (f) or clause (j) of Annexure-1 has been implemented or is required to be implemented since it does not come within the ambit of the retirement benefit claims, especially when the erstwhile State Electricity Board and the NTPC have made categorical statement in their counter affidavit that settlement has already been made in terms of their obligation and entitlement.

If the petitioner is looking for a windfall in terms of those agreement and clauses then he has to look for other method and methodology or forum for getting those provisions operational. Writ application stands disposed of keeping in mind that the admitted claims stands paid by the Board and the NTPC. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) sk U