Jharkhand High Court
Sunil Chaudhuri vs Jharkhand State Electricity ... on 28 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3150 of 2011
Sunil Chaudhuri, son of late R.N. Chaudhary, R/o House No. - 21/1E
Fern Road, P.O. P.S. and District - Kolkata - 700019 (West Bengal)
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Jharkhand State Electricity Board through its Chairman, having its
office at Engineering Bhawan, Sector - 3, H.E.C. Township, P.O.
& P.S. - Dhurwa, District - Ranchi
2. The Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Engineering
Bhawan, Sector - 3, H.E.C. Township, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa,
District - Ranchi
3. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan,
Bailey Road, P.O. - Income Tax Office, P.S. - Kotwali, District -
Patna, Bihar
4. The Joint Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board,
Engineering Bhawan, Sector - 3, H.E.C Township, P.O. & P.S. -
Dhurwa, District - Ranchi
5. The Joint Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board,
Engineering Bhawan, Sector - 3, H.E.C., Township, P.O. & P.S.
- Dhurwa, District - Ranchi
6. Electrical Superintending Engineer, Jharkhand State Electricity
Board, Electric Supply Division, Chaibasa, West Singbhum,
Jharkhand ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shubham Mishra, Advocate
For the Resp. No.1, 2, 4, 5 & 6 : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Advocate
For the Resp. No.3 : Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
12/28.02.2022 Heard Mr. Shubham Mishra, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6.
3. Heard Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent no.3.
4. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:
"For a direction upon the respondent Jharkhand State
Electricity Board to immediately and forthwith make payment of the
arrears of difference of salary in the revised scale (as per the 6 th pay
commission report) with penal for the period April, 1997 to December
2000 while the petitioner was posted as Electrical Executive Engineer,
Electric Supply Division, Chaktradharpur, Jharkhand before
bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar which has not been paid to
the petitioner till date inspite of submission of full records and details
to respondent no.4 as far as back on 20.08.2007 and in the light of
the order dated 01.12.2006 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in SLP (C) No.8618 of 2006, order passed by Hon'ble Jharkhand
High Court in Shashi Bhushan Prasad case and order dated
02.12.2010 passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court in LPA No.579 of
2008."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order
passed by Single Judge of Hon'ble Patna High Court in MJC No. 1359
of 2005 dated 28.04.2008 which was subject matter of challenge
before Division Bench of Hon'ble Patna High Court in L.P.A. No.579
of 2008 whereby the order passed in the aforesaid M.J.C case was set-
aside. He submits that in view of the aforesaid Division Bench
Judgement, the entitlement of the petitioner as prayed for in the
present writ petition is not in dispute and it is JUVNL who has to
make the payment for the claims of the petitioner on account of
arrears of salary in revised scale in terms of 6th Pay Commission
report. The writ petitioner of the case filed at Patna, who is the
petitioner before this Court, was given liberty to move appropriate
authority in appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance relating to
payment of salary and liberty was also granted to him to avail the
remedy open to him before the High Court of Jharkhand if so desired.
6. Consequently, the petitioner filed a representation dated
15.04.2011 before the Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board for
payment of arrear of salary on account of revision of pay w.e.f
01.04.1997 to 30.10.2000, but in spite of filing such representation, no
order was passed and being aggrieved the petitioner has filed the
present writ petition.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
Jharkhand State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as JSEB)
submits that JSEB has now been succeeded by Jharkhand Urja Vikas
Nigam Limited (herein after referred to as JUVNL) and a counter
affidavit has been filed on behalf of JUVNL. He further submits that
the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the petitioner
to file fresh representation before the Managing Director, JUVNL and
upon such representation, appropriate order will be passed after
examining the claim of the petitioner and if any amount is found
payable, the same will be remitted to the bank account of the
petitioner.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3 has no
objection to the aforesaid submissions which has been made by the
learned counsel for JSEB (now JUVNL).
9. This Court finds that the petitioner had filed one writ petition
before Hon'ble Patna High Court being C.W.J.C. No.10492 of 2003
which was confined to payment of retirement benefit as the petitioner
had retired from the Bihar State Electricity Board. In the writ order
certain directions were issued and upon non-compliance of such
directions, the petitioner filed one petition for initiation of contempt
proceeding being M.J.C. No.1359 of 2005 and in the contempt
proceeding, the liability was sought to be disputed both by Bihar State
Electricity Board and Jharkhand State Electricity Board. The
Contempt application was disposed of directing that Bihar State
Electricity Board should also pay the petitioner arrears of difference of
salary for the period between 01.04.1997 to 31.10.2000 and thereafter
would be at liberty to realize the amount from the Jharkhand State
Electricity Board if otherwise permissible in law.
10. The said order passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court in MJC
No.1359 of 2005 dated 28.04.2008 was subject matter of challenge
before Hon'ble Patna High Court in LPA No.579 of 2008 and the
officers of BSEB raised a specific plea that additional direction issued
in contempt application was well beyond the subject matter of writ
petition, in as much as, the writ petition was confined only to the
payment of retiral benefits of the petitioner and any direction for
payment of salary in the contempt application was beyond the scope
of the contempt application and thus not sustainable in the eyes of law.
The further argument in the LPA Court was that the payment, if any,
has to be made by JSEB and not BSEB as the petitioner, at the
material point of time, on or before the date of his retirement, was
working only within the territorial jurisdiction of JSEB.
11. In the aforesaid LPA, it was held that the direction as contained
in the order passed in contempt application was beyond the scope of
the writ application and therefore there was no question of any
adjudication with regard to payment of the salary to the petitioner
much less a direction to BSEB and his officials for making payment of
salary to the writ petitioner. The Hon'ble Division Bench also
considered the 2nd aspect with regard to direction for payment of
salary and emoluments with arrears to the writ petitioner and observed
that both BSEB and JSEB had seriously disputed their liability for
payment of salary of the writ petitioner. In this context, the Hon'ble
Division Bench relied upon the judgment passed by this Court vide
order dated 12.12.2008 passed in W.P.(S). No.4167 of 2005 (Shashi
Bhushan Prasad Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna and Ors.)
as well as the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P. (C)
No.8618 of 2006 disposed of on 01.12.2006 and in the light of the
decision taken by Government of India, Ministry of Power dated
03.11.2006 wherein it was held that the JSEB was liable to make
payment of salary and emoluments of such employee who was
working within the territorial jurisdiction of JSEB. The relevant
portion of the aforesaid LPA judgement for the purposes of this case
are as under:
"10. As would appear from the above facts, the B.S.E.B.
has acknowledged its liability to pay to the petitioner the
Gratuity and the unutilized leave encashment amount. As
regards the petitioner's remaining claim for payment of arrears
of duty pay in the revised pay scale to the tune of Rs.
1,95,691.95 Paise, which claim amounts to claim for arrears of
salary, considering the terms of agreement between the
B.S.E.B. and the J.S.E.B. and the settlement made by the
Central Government vide its decision dated 03.11.2006, the
liability to pay the arrears of salary should squarely fall upon
the J.S.E.B. since the petitioner had retied while working at the
Patratu Thermal Power Station, Patratu, Hazaribagh, which
now falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of
Jharkhand.
11. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel for the
Respondents-J.S.E.B. would submit that a direction to the
J.S.E.B. to pay the arrears of salary would entail extreme
inconvenience both to the J.S.E.B. as well as to the B.S.E.B.
since the matter would not remain confined only to the
petitioner because several other such retired employees have
also staked their claim for payment of arrears of salary.
Learned counsel explains that since such retired employees by
their option have been receiving payment of pension from the
B.S.E.B., their service records have been retained by the
B.S.E.B. and it would be very inconvenient to call for all such
service records only for the purpose of calculating the arrears
of salary on the revised pay-scales in respect of each such
employee.
12. The above argument of the learned counsel for the
J.S.E.B. does not appear to be persuasive. Since the matter
involves only the calculation of the arrears on the revised
scales and the number of claimants being not alarmingly high,
the service records of all such retired employees, who have
submitted their respective claim for payment of the arrears of
salary on the revised pay-scale, may be obtained by the
Respondent-J.S.E.B. from the office of the B.S.E.B. and after
computing the payable amounts, would return the service
records to the office of the B.S.E.B. Alternatively, with the
cooperation of the concerned authorities of the B.S.E.B., such
calculation may be made by the B.S.E.B. and authenticated
statements of the amounts calculated in respect of each of the
retired employees may be forwarded to the concerned
authorities of the J.S.E.B. and on receipt of the same, the
J.S.E.B. would release the payments to the retired employees
including the petitioner. Since the Respondent-J.S.E.B. is liable
to pay the amounts of arrears of salary on the revised pay-scale
to the petitioner, it is directed that the Respondent-J.S.E.B.
shall complete the modalities and ensure that the payment is
released to the petitioner within a period of four months from
the date of this order."
12. The Hon'ble Patna High Court further observed that it was not
in dispute that the petitioner had worked and retired from the service
from Chakradharpur which falls within the jurisdiction of JSEB and
thus, relying upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of
Shashi Bhushan Prasad (supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench was of
the considered view that the direction issued by the learned Single
Judge in MJC order was not sustainable. After having held as
aforesaid, the LPA was allowed and the order passed in aforesaid MJC
was set aside with a liberty to the petitioner to move appropriate
authority in the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances
regarding payment of salary and liberty was also granted to the
petitioner to avail the remedy open to him before High Court of
Jharkhand, if so desired.
13. Consequently, the petitioner filed a representation dated
15.04.2011 before the Secretary, JSEB (now JUVNL) in which no
decision has been taken so far on the merits of the claim of the
petitioner and consequently the petitioner has filed the present writ
petition praying for the aforesaid reliefs.
14. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going
through the orders passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court in MJC
No.1359 of 2005 dated 28.04.2008 and also in LPA No.579 of 2008 as
annexed with the writ petition in Annexure - 1 and Annexure - 2
respectively, it is not in dispute that the judgment passed by Hon'ble
Patna High Court in LPA No.579 of 2008 is binding on the both the
parties/their successors. It further appears that the petitioner had filed
a representation raising his claim before the Secretary, Jharkhand
State Electricity Board (now JUVNL) as back as on 15.04.2011, but
no decision has been taken so far on the merits of the claim of the
petitioner.
15. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the
petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Managing Director
of JUVNL along with the entire records of this case within a period of
one month from today. Upon filing of such representation, the
Managing Director, JUVNL shall fix a date of hearing for the
petitioner and upon hearing the petitioner, shall pass a reasoned order
disposing of the representation on the claim of the petitioner within a
period of three months thereafter. If any amount is payable to the
petitioner, the same be also remitted to the bank account to be given
by the petitioner in his representation within a period of two months
thereafter. It is further directed that the reasoned order should be
communicated to the petitioner through email as well as through speed
post to the petitioner at the e-mail/ postal address to be given by the
petitioner in the representation. It is made clear that this Court has not
gone into the merits or otherwise of the claim of the petitioner with
regard to reliefs as prayed for in this writ petition.
16. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.
17. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav
