HIRA LAL DUTTA Vs. JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT appears that the defects pointed out by the office having been removed, this case was to be listed for admission, but has been wrongly listed under the heading for orders. It may be treated as listed for admission.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was an employee under the respondent Board and retired on 30.9.2007 on the post of Head Clerk from the services of the Board. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted all the relevant documents for the purpose of assessing his retiral benefits payable to him. When the matter was delayed, the petitioner filed a representation on 31.10.2007 demanding payment. In response to the representation, the petitioner received a copy of the order (annexure 2 ) whereby he was informed that sanction for payment of leave encashment as well as payment of GPF and pension amount was given by the concerned authority of the respondents, petitioner's grievance is that inspite of such sanction having being accorded, no payment has been made to the petitioner, except payment of 90% pension.