Narendra Jha vs Jharkhand State Electricity ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 582 Jhar

                                    1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   W.P.(S) No. 7042 of 2012
     1.Narendra Jha.
     2.Ravindra Prasad Singh                ..... Petitioners
                           Versus
    1. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi, through its
       Chairman, JSEB Board.
    2. Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Engineering
       Building, HEC, P.O & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
    3. Joint Secretary-I, Jharkhand State Electricity Board,
       Engineering Building, HEC, P.O & P.S. Dhurwa, District-
       Ranchi.
    4. Director, Finance Jharkhand State Electricity Board,
       Engineering Building, HEC, P.O & P.S. Dhurwa, District-
       Ranchi.                             .....   Respondents
                            ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. M.Kanti Roy, Advocate

---------

10/Dated: 8th February, 2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by

the petitioners praying for a direction upon the respondents

to immediately and forthwith make payment of all post

retiral dues of these petitioners along with interest.

3. Mr. Prabhash Kr. learned counsel for the petitioner

fairly submits that both the petitioners have received the

retiral benefits, but since the same has not been paid in

time and has been paid after much delay so the petitioners

are also entitled for interest. He fairly submits that he may

be granted liberty to approach the concerned respondent

only for payment of interest. He further referred to

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

D.D.Tewari (Dead) Through Legal Representatives Vs.

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and Others,

reported in (2014) 8 SCC 894.

4. Mr. M.Kanti Roy, learned counsel for the

respondents opposes the prayer of the petitioners for

payment of interest. He further submits that the moment

the petitioners were exonerated from the charge; the retiral

benefits have been paid.

5. Replying to the aforesaid contention, Mr. Kumar

reiterated that he may be allowed to represent before the

concerned respondents who shall decide the matter in the

light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case above referred case.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

after perusing the respective affidavits especially the

supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners which

clearly transpires that after the petitioners were exonerated;

entire retiral benefits were paid to them. However, the

petitioners are at liberty to raise the issue of interest before

the concerned respondents within a period of three months,

if so advised.

If any such representation is filed before the

competent authority; the same shall be considered in

accordance with law and the Board's rules and also in the

light of the judgment referred to hereinabove within a

period of four months.

If any amount is found payable to the

petitioners; the same shall be paid within a further period

of six weeks.

7. With the aforesaid terms the instant writ application

stands disposed of.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/