Shailendra Kumar Sharma v. The Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd. And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL REVIEW No.449 of 2017 ====================================================== Shailendra Kumar Sharma son of late Devendra Prasad Sharma, Resident of Village- Dighara, Police Station- Pusa, District- Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd. Through its Chairman-cumManaging Director, Vidyut Bhwan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2.

The Managing Director, Bihar State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Patna 3.

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Patna. 4.

The Administrator, Contributory Provident Fund trust, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

5.

The Administrator, Contributory Provident Fund trust, Transmission Circle, New Punaikchak, Patna.

6.

The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Transmission Zone, New Punaichak, Patna.

7.

The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Transmission Circle, New Punaichak, Patna.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. D.K.Sinha, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Akanksha Malviya, Adv.

Mr. Akash Keshav, Adv.

Mr. Makardhwaj Upadhyaya, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ritesh, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 14-12-2023 Though the present review petition has been filed for review of the order dated 28.8.2017, passed in CWJC No. 12238 of 2016, but it is submitted that since the counsel for the petitioner could not appear on the said date, the stand taken by the Respondents-Company to the effect that all the retrial dues of the petitioner had stood paid, was accepted and the petition was disposed off, nonetheless, the fact remains that substantial

Patna High Court C. REV. No.449 of 2017(3) dt.14-12-2023 2/2 amount of outstanding retiral dues are yet to be paid to the petitioner. In such view of the matter, the Ld. Senior Counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition, agitating his subsisting grievances, in view of the fact that he is still to be paid the retiral benefits as per the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1995 as also as per the applicable Rules / Regulations. Liberty, so sought, is granted. 2.

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed off as not pressed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Ajay/- U