NANDIPATI DAS Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for a direction on the respondents to pay him the retiral dues and to fix his pension, taking into consideration the last pay drawn by him. He has also challenged the office order No. 422 dated 12th June, 2002, issued by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi (hereinafter to be referred as JSEB), whereby and where -under while sanctioning the D.C.R. Gratuity amounting to Rs. 1,85,006.25 (rupees one lac eighty five thousand six and twenty five paise), it has ordered to recover a sum of Rs. 99,828.00 (rupees ninety nine thousand eight hundred and twenty eight) from the OCR. Gratuity, on the ground of excess amount, paid to firm. It has also been prayed to direct the respondents to pay him the amount towards the leave encashment and difference of salary, due to revision of pay, for the period from 1st April. 1997 to 31st January, 2000.

(2.) THE petitioner, who was in the service of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi, retired on 31st January, 2000 from the post of Head Clerk, Patratu Thermal Power Station, Patratu (hereinafter to be referred as P.T.P.S.). He having not been paid the retiral benefits, moved before this Court in CWJC No. 802 of 2001, wherein, a Bench of this Court by order dated 27th February, 2001 remitted the case with a direction to the competent authority to pay the petitioner all the admitted dues, legally payable to him, within three months. The pay of the petitioner not having been fixed on the basis of the last pay, drawn by him, and the total dues not having been paid inspite of the Courts order, he had to prefer a contempt petition being Contempt case (C) No. 724 of 2001, wherein, a Bench of this Court having noticed the rival submissions, relating to fixation of pepsin and certain amount having been paid, did not choose to initiated the contempt proceeding and it was, accordingly, dropped on 1st August, 2003. In the Contempt proceeding it having been brought to the notice of the Court that the order No. 422 dated 12th June, 2002 has been issued to pay the D.C.R. gratuity after recovering a sum of Rs. 99,828.00 from the said D.C.R. Gratuity amount, the petitioner has challenged the said order in the present case.

(3.) COUNSEL for the Electricity Board relied on the Standing Order No. XIII/D1/ 1017/75 -515/EB Patna dated 7th May, 1976, issued by the Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna, wherein, giving reference to Standing Order No. 454 dated 19th June, 1975, certain modification was made and the following guideline was issued, relevant clause 3 of which reads as follows: