JAHANVI SHANKARVERMA Vs. CHAIRMAN BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a very small matter which should not have embroiled a petty employee of the Bihar State Electricity Board (in short the Board), in so much litigation. The appellant by rank is a Switch Board Operator (a Class III Post), who had not received his entire post retirement benefits immediately. The whole issue has arisen on the aspect that provident fund was not paid forthwith after retirement. The petitioner came to the High Court earlier by a writ petition (CWJC No. 5812 of 2002). The issue and the claim was of interest on delayed payment of the general provident fund between 1993 to 1996. The High Court ordered that the matter be scrutinised to examine the petitioner&aposs entitlement to interest for delayed payment. The order of the High Court is dated 4.6.2002. It took the Board six months to hear the petitioner. What was required to be seen was that if the fault did not lie with the petitioner then the statutory interest was to be made available to him. The statutory interest is indicated as 9.5% in pursuance of Rule 31.The rule incidentally was framed in 1948; these are State Rules adopted by the Board in dealing with the affairs of post retirement benefits and pensions.

(2.) A communication addressed to the petitioner -appellant letter no. 2873 dated 25 August, 1995 refers the letter of the Deputy Director Accounts no. 5924 dated 19 August, 1994. Even the inter departmental steps took one year to act upon. The letter dated 25 August, 1995 addressed to the petitioner places on record that his application for withdrawal of the balance payment cannot be located in the office. The indication was not that he had not applied. But that the application of the petitioner had been misplaced and could not be located. Now what should have been done before was attempted to be done later. The petitioner was being forwarded three copies of an application and was being advised to fill up so that his claim could be processed. Clearly, if the Board could forward three copies of the application by acknowledging that the earlier one had been misplaced a lot of unpleasantness being faced by the petitioner would have been saved.

(3.) THE entire record was being misinterpreted at the Board by the time the General Manager -cum - Chief Engineering was hearing the petitioner to comply with the orders of the High Court on the earlier petition. it was being reflected that the application for final withdrawal of provident fund submitted by the petitioner was "not on a prescribed format." The other record of 7 years earlier tells the petitioner that his application cannot be located. Is this the same application which was not on the prescribed format? Because the subsequent three formats had been given by the Board itself.