MEENA DEVI Vs. JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER No. 1 is the widow of late Ira Deo Prasad Singh, who was serving as an Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Khunti, Ranchi. The husband of the petitioner No. 1 died in harness on 24th October, 1992. After his death family pension was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner by the Bihar State Electricity Board vide P.P.O. No. 104 dated 18th February, 1993. Petitioner No. 1 has been paid pension till 20th May, 2005, whereafter her pension was stopped. She also claims arrears due to 50 per cent D.A. merger besides family pension from June, 2005 onwards. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 were also serving in various capacities to the Bihar State Electricity Board and retired from service. Petitioner No. 2 retired as Controller on 31st May, 1998 and his pension was sanctioned vide P.P.O. No. 608, dated 29th May, 1998 and his P.P.O. was subsequently transferred to Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Aurangabad. It is alleged that he received pension till May, 2005. This petitioner also claims arrears due to Revision of pay and Gratuity amounting to Rs. 1,12,942.50, which was also sanctioned vide Memo. No. 2143 dated 10.10.2002 but not paid. Apartfrom above claims, petitioner has also claimed arrears of pay amounting to Rs. 30,632/ -, remaining 25 installments @ Rs. 2195/ - per month due to revision of pay and pension, remaining 44 installments @ Rs. 428/ - on account of arrears of Central D.A., difference of pension after 50 per cent merger of D.A. and difference of amount for leave encashment due to revision of pay. Petitioner No. 3 also retired as Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Latehar on 31st January, 2001. His pension was sanctioned vide P.P.O. No. 101 dated 27th January, 2001, was later transferred to the Office of Respondent No. 1. This petitioner has also been paid pension till May, 2005 and he also claims other retiral benefits apartfrom pension in the form of Gratuity amounting to Rs. 1,77,905/ -sanctioned vide Memo. No. 2199 dated 20th September, 2001, arrears of pay from 01st April, 1997 till October, 2000 due to pay revision, arrears of difference of pension from February, 2001 to September, 2001, remaining 25 installments of Central D.A., arrears of revised pension due to 50 per cent D.A. merger and difference of amount on account of leave encashment due to pay revision as sanctioned vide letter No. 141 dated 30th of May, 2002. Similarly petitioner No. 4, who retired as Assistant Electrical Engineer on 30th of June, 1996 from Electric Supply Sub - Division, Giridih was also sanctioned pension vide P.P.O. No. 242 dated 16th February, 1999. He has received Pension up to May, 2005 and his other claims as per the averments made in the writ petition relate to arrears of pension since June, 2005 till date, remaining 25 installments of enhanced pension due to pay revision and arrear due to 50 per cent D.A. merger. Petitioner No. 5, who also retired as Assistant Electrical Engineer (Senior Engineer Special Grade) on 30th of September, 2000 from Electric Supply Sub -Division, Lohardaga was also sanctioned pension. His claim is for arrears of pension since June, 2005 and gratuity amounting to Rs. 1,84,535/ - as sanctioned vide letter No. 2743 dated 3rd November, 2001, arrears of pay from 1st April, 1997 to September, 2000 due to pay revision and leave encashment and group saving scheme.

(2.) IT appears that after the creation of separate State of Jharkhand and bifurcation of Bihar State Electricity Board into two parts, some dispute arose regarding the liability to pay the pension to the erstwhile employees of the Bihar State Electricity Board. A number of writ petitions came to be filed in this Court and some directions were issued. Matter also landed before the apex Court, wherein, initially some directions were issued. In the meanwhile, Bihar State Electricity Board and Jharkhand State Electricity Board arrived at an agreement for grant of pension to the employees and the agreement was also presented before the Supreme Court and S.L.P. came to be disposed of based upon mutual agreement.

(3.) THOUGH counter affidavit has not been filed, however, it is agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties that the case is squarely covered by aforesaid directions.