Dismissed

The Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi v. The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors.

Patna HC17 Nov 2016L.P.A/1998/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed letters patent appeal by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board challenging an order granting retiral benefits. The court held that the applicant is entitled to post-retiral dues consequent to the discharge order, rejecting the bar of constructive res judicata.

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed and the writ application allowing payment of retiral benefits stands upheld.

The Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1998 of 2016

¶2

¶3

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 534 of 2012

¶4

=========================================================== The Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi, presently Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited through its General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Transmission Zone III, Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited, Campus Office at 132/33 KV Grid Sub-Station, Gamharia, District Saraikela Kharsawan, Jharkhand

¶5

.... .... Appellants Versus

¶6

The Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna

¶7

The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 3. The Member (Administration), Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna

¶8

The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna

¶9

The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna

¶10

Vishwanath Singh, son of Sri Ram Nandan Singh, resident of village Pareyan, Post Garahuan, Police Station Kurhani, District Muzaffarpur, presently residing at village Bhikhanpura (South), P.O. H.P.O, Muzaffarpur, Police Station Sadar Bhagwanpur, District Muzaffarpur

¶11

.... .... Respondents

¶12

=========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Satyavrat Verma, Advocate For Respondent-Board: Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Advocate

¶13

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE And

¶14

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT

¶15

(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 17-11-2016

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶17

The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 3^rd of October, 2012 in CWJC No. 534 of 2012 whereby the learned Single Bench allowed the writ petition and ordered for grant of payment of retiral benefits consequent to discharge of the writ applicant vide order dated 19^th of

¶18

Patna High Court LPA No.1998 of 2016 dt.17-11-2016

¶19

2/3

¶20

July, 2004.

¶21

Initially, the service of the writ applicant was dismissed vide order dated 23^rd of December, 1997 but effective from 1st of May, 1996. Such order was set aside on 13^th of March, 1999 in a writ application by this Court and the matter was remitted to the competent authority to consider the matter afresh. Subsequently, the writ applicant was directed to be compulsory retired with effect from 1^st of May, 1996 vide order dated 20^th of July, 1999. The order of compulsory retirement was set aside on 31^st of July, 2003 in CWJC No. 3679 of 2000. It is thereafter, an order was passed by the Chairman of the Bihar state Electricity Board on 19^th July, 2004 of his discharge from service with effect from 1^st of May, 1996. The order of discharge contemplated that the writ applicant would be entitled to post retiral dues in terms of Rule 46 of the Bihar Pension Rules.

¶22

The challenge to the order of discharge remained unsuccessful when CWJC No. 7280 of 2004 was dismissed on 3^rd of May, 2007 and LPA No. 545 of 2007 preferred by the writ applicant affirmed such order on 6^th of July, 2011. It is thereafter, the writ applicant sought for payment of retiral dues which petition has since been allowed by the learned Single Bench.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the writ applicant is not entitled to retiral benefits since such relief was not claimed and/or granted in the earlier writ petition filed by him when the order dated 19^th of July, 2004 was challenged. It is argued that the writ

¶24

Patna High Court LPA No.1998 of 2016 dt.17-11-2016

¶25

3/3

¶26

application subsequently filed by the applicant is barred by the principle of constructive res judicata.

¶27

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and find no merit in the present appeal. The fact is that in an earlier writ petition, the challenge was to the order of discharge. Once the challenge to the order of discharge has remained unsuccessful, the writ applicant is entitled to the consequential benefits which has been conferred by the order of discharge itself i.e. post retiral dues in terms of Rule 46 of the Bihar Pension Rules. There is no question of constructive res judicata as the order of discharge dated 19^th of July, 2004 itself contemplates the retiral dues in terms of Rule 46 of the Bihar Pension Rules. The writ applicant has sought to enforce the payment of retiral benefits by way of present writ application, which has been allowed.

¶28

We do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Bench which may warrant interference by this Court. The Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶29

(Hemant Gupta, ACJ)

¶30

B.T/Ibrar

¶31

(Vikash Jain, J)

¶32

AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE N.A. Uploading Date19.11.2016 Transmission N.A. Date

The Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi v. The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi v. The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhimanyu Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

The State Of Bihar and Ors. Vs Rang Natha Sharma

The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank Vs Bal Mukund Mahto and Anr.

Jayram @ Jayram Viplav Vs The State Of Bihar and Anr.

M/s Ashok Int Vs The State Of Bihar and Anr.

High Court Legal Services Committee, Patna High Court, Patna Through Its Secretary Shri Kishore Pra Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.