JAI NATH SAO Vs. JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before learned counsel for the petitioner argues out the case, in detail, that the retirement benefits have not been paid, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that following retirement benefits have already been paid to the petitioner.

(2.) In view of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the petitioner retired on 31st March, 2002 and thereafter, promptly, the payment of the group provident fund has been made on 20th April, 2002. Similarly, other benefits have also been made. So far as the overtime dues are concerned, it requires detail evidence to be taken. The petitioner was working as Technician-II. Petitioner can prefer representation before the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Patratu Thermal Power Station, Patratu, Ramgarh and it will be decided by the aforesaid officer, in accordance with law.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid payment already made and received by the petitioner since long, without any protest and thereafter, no grievance has been ventilated for several months, as the petition has been filed in the year, 2008, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition.