Disposed

Sanjay Kumar v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Ors.

Patna HC11 Sept 2012CWJC/16865/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ jurisdiction case, the petitioner claimed non-payment for executed scanning work of forms. The court held that BSNL could not ignore the bills, directing authorities to process and pay admitted amounts within three months with 12% interest for delay. Objections must be communicated specifically within the same period.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider, examine and process petitioner's bills and pay admitted amount within three months failing which interest @12% shall be payable. Liberty to dispute specific parts wit

Sanjay Kumar Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16865 of 2012

¶3

====================================================== Sanjay Kumar, son of Indradeo Prasad, Proprietor Genius Solution, 501, 5^th floor, Hari Om Commercial Complex, Dak Banglow Road, Patna, presently residing at Mohalla- Yogiatoli, Yarpur, P.S.-Gardanibagh, District-Patna.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus

¶5

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited through the Chief General Manager, Bihar Circle, “R” Block, Patna.

¶6

The Telecom District Manager, Hajipur.

¶7

The Divisional Engineer (A&P), Office of the Telecom District Manager, Hajipur (Vaishali).

¶8

The Divisional Engineer (Commercial), O/O of the T.D.M., Hajipur, Vaishali.

¶9

The Sub-Divisional Engineer (CCN), O/O the T.D.M., Hajipur, Vaishali.

¶10

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

¶11

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amar Nath Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. J.P.Karn, Sr.Adv.

¶12

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶13

2 11-09-2012 As per the case of petitioner, under valid orders of the respondents, he executed the work of scanning of excel forms and cell one forms and submitted print out. He claims that he completed the work and thereafter submitted his bills. However, no amount of the bill has been paid to him so far.

¶14

Learned Senior Counsel for the BSNL points out that, as per own admission of the petitioner made in paragraph 7, about one thousand cell one forms were lost in transaction which the petitioner did not deposit and in that respect an FIR has been instituted against him.

¶15

Patna High Court CWJC No.16865 of 2012 (2) dt.11-09-2012

¶16

2 / 2

¶17

Be that as it may, if the petitioner has submitted his bills the same requires to be examined, processed and admitted amount is required to be paid. In case, the respondents dispute the amount of the bill or any part of the amount of the bill, they are at liberty to communicate the same to the petitioner assigning specific reasons for the same. But in no case they are entitled to sit over the bills without taking any final decision.

¶18

In the circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider, examine and process the bills of the petitioner and pay the admitted amount to him, positively within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which from the next day he will be entitled for interest @ 12% on the admitted amount. The BSNL will be at liberty to dispute and deny any part of the amount of the bill, but that must also be communicated to the petitioner with specific reasons within that very period. Thereafter, petitioner will be at liberty to seek his remedy against the disputed claim before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

¶19

Arvind/-

¶20

(Jayanandan Singh, J)

Sanjay Kumar v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s All India Pest Control Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Gautam Prasad Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Dharmendra Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Lalan Shukla Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Mahesh Sah and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Chandra Shekhar Choubey and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.