Patna v. 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna through Its Secretary
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 23292 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Nawal Kishore Vishwakarma Son of Late Nand Kumar Resident of Mohalla: North Gola Road, Danapur Cantt P.O.: Danapur, P.S.: Danapur, District: Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna through Its Secretary 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 3. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 4. The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 5. The Financial Controller, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 6. The Director (Terminal Benefits), Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 7. The Deputy Director of Accounts (Head Quarter), Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 8. The Deputy Director Of Accounts (Secretariat), Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 9. The General Manager-Cum-Chief Engineer, Electric Supply Area Board, Bhagalpur 10. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle, Munger 11. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Shekhpura .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr Shiw Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : M/s Dharmeshwar Mishra & S K Srivastava, Advocates ====================================================== CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ORAL ORDER 3 10-05-2013 Petitioner superannuated on 30.06.2010 as a Meter Reader from the office of Electrical Executive Engineer, Sheikhpura under the Bihar State Electricity Board, as it then was. From 01.07.2010, his pension disbursement started. On 01.07.2010, leave encashment payment was sanctioned by the Electrical Executive Engineer (respondent No 11). On
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.23292 of 2012 (3) dt.10-05-2013 14.09.2012, death –cum- retiral gratuity was sanctioned. It may 2 be noted here that the total gratuity sanction was Rs 4,75,118/- but as per sanction order, it appears only Rs 3,50,000/- was required to be paid. The balance is to be kept back for payment as per orders of the Board to be issued subsequently because of financial constraints. So far as GPF and GSS amounts are concerned not even sanctions were made. None of these amounts having been paid, this writ petition was filed on 14.12.2012. Today, a counter affidavit has been filed in which it is stated that so far as leave encashment is concerned, the same amounting to Rs 2,05,335/- has been paid by cheque dated 07.05.2013. So far as gratuity is concerned, as per sanction order, the sanctioned amount of Rs 3,50,000/- has been paid vide cheque dated 20.02.2013 and the balance of Rs 1,25,118/- has been held back because of financial constraint to be paid as per directives of the Board. So far as GPF amount is concerned, Rs 4,25,947/- has been paid vide cheque dated 07.05.2013. The last head is GSS. It is stated that by cheque dated 07.05.2013, an amount of Rs 31,576/- has been paid but this does not include the deposits for the period, October, 1986 to March, 1995 when petitioner was posted at Hazaribagh which, upon bifurcation of the State in the year 2000, has fallen under the jurisdiction of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board. This is so because inspite of reminders, the Patna High Court CWJC No.23292 of 2012 (3) dt.10-05-2013 amount for the said period is not being remitted by the Jharkhand 3 State Electricity Board to the Bihar State Electricity Board and consequently they cannot pay the same. From the facts noted above, the first thing I would like to note is that though the petitioner superannuated on 30.06.2010, there was something that was withholding payments of his retiral dues. Why they were not sanctioned and paid immediately is not known? Who was responsible for this delay and for what consideration has not been disclosed? It is this inaction on part of the Board that forced the litigation upon the petitioner and it is only after the writ petition was filed that slowly, bit by bit, payments, which were due in 2010 itself, were released. This is not only an unsatisfactory position but gives rise to unhealthy and inappropriate practices. Board must identify persons responsible for the delay and take suitable action so that this Court is not burdened with clerical work of clearing the dues of employees. Learned counsel for the petitioner states, on which this Court shall take no notice, that it is cheaper to file a writ petition and get payments than to approach the authorities to get the payments released. Be that as it may, only two payments are now withheld, one by a conscious decision of the Board, the amount in Patna High Court CWJC No.23292 of 2012 (3) dt.10-05-2013 excess of Rs 3,50,000/- in respect of gratuity has been withheld 4 because of financial constraint. The second is GSS amount for the period October, 1986 to March, 1995. So far as the second is concerned, mere writing letters, assuming they have been written, will get no result. The petitioner has no privity of contract with Jharkhand State Electricity Board. The liability is wholly and solely on the Bihar State Electricity Board. It is for the Board to get the figures by sending a man to the respective office there and making the payment to the petitioner. It is open to them to seek reimbursement from their counterpart from Jharkhand but that cannot deprive the petitioner of his legitimate payment. I, accordingly, direct that so far as GSS amount is concerned, it must be quantified and paid to the petitioner within one month from today. The liability for timely compliance of this would be exclusively on the Director (Terminal Benefits) of the Bihar State Electricity Board (now the Bihar Power Holding Company Private Limited). In case of delay in compliance, he shall be liable to be proceeded in contempt. From the fats noted above, it would also be seen that there has been unexplained inordinate delay of almost three years in payment of retiral dues. Dues were paid only after the writ petition was filed clearly showing that someone somewhere was waiting for precipitating action one way or the Patna High Court CWJC No.23292 of 2012 (3) dt.10-05-2013 other. 5 In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be prejudicially affected. He must be compensated with delayed payment interest. All payments, which have been made after delay of more than six months from the date it was due, would liable to carry, apart from statutory interest upto the date of actual payment, 2% penal interest and where there is no statutory interest for delayed payment provided, Board shall pay 6% interest for the delay in payment. That is the only little compensation which petitioner can get for this inordinate delay. It shall be the responsibility of the Director (Terminal Benefits), respondent No 6 to ensure this payment which payment shall also be made within one month from today and which payment is in consonance with the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala & Others –Versus- M Padmanabhan Nair, AIR 1985 Supreme Court 356.
Decision
The writ petition, thus, stands disposed of. M.E.H./- (Navaniti Prasad Singh)