Disposed

Nirmal Kumar Karan v. The Bihar State Power Holding Pvt. Ltd. Through The General Manager and Ors.

Patna HC26 Oct 2018CWJC/13828/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition seeking mandamus for full retrial benefits and pension, the Court found most benefits had been paid. Only 10% gratuity remained unpaid. The petition was disposed of, directing the respondent to pay the balance gratuity and verify pension scale within four weeks of a representation.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of the writ petition and directed respondent to pay remaining 10% gratuity and confirm pension scale within four weeks.

Nirmal Kumar Karan Vs The Bihar State Power… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13828 of 2018

¶3

===========================================================

¶4

Nirmal Kumar Karan, Son of Late Thakur Prasadm resident of Mohalla Kayastha Tola, Ward No. 28, Town- Saharsa, P.S. Sadar Town, District Saharsa.

¶5

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Bihar State Power Holding Pvt. Ltd. through the General Manager, Human Resource/ Administration Office situated at Bailey Road, Patna.

¶8

The General Manager (H/R), Human Resource/ Administration Bihar State Power Holding Pvt. Ltd. Patna.

¶9

North Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. through its Superintending Engineer of Electric Supply Circle at Saharsa.

¶10

North Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. Electric Supply Division through the Executive Engineer, Koshi Electric Supply Area at Saharsa, District Saharsa. 5. The Account Officer, Office of the Electric Supply Division, at Saharsa.

¶11

.... .... Respondent/s

¶12

=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subodh Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh

¶13

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶15

Date: 26-10-2018

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶17

The petitioner has moved the Court for the following

¶18

reliefs :-

¶19

“That this Petition is being filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to make payment of retrial benefit of the petitioner including Gratuity, Pension, Provident Fnd, Insurance money, Part of Leave Salary and A.C.P. together with 18 per cent interest for the abnormal delay caused by him.”

¶20

In view of the stand taken in the counter affidavit filed on

¶21

behalf of the respondents, the Court finds that all retrial benefits, except for 10 per cent gratuity, have been paid. Copy of the same was served on learned counsel for the petitioner on 01.10.2018. On query

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.13828 of 2018 dt.26-10-2018

¶23

2/2

¶24

of the Court to learned counsel for the respondents as to why 10 per cent of gratuity has not been paid, there is no explanation.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that with regard to pension, he is not aware whether it has been paid in the revised scale or not.

¶26

Having regard to the aforesaid, the Court finds that the post retrial benefits of the petitioner having substantially been paid, except 10 per cent gratuity, the writ petition has served its purpose. Accordingly, the same stands disposed off.

¶27

However, with regard to remaining 10 per cent of gratuity, the petitioner may file representation before the respondent no.4. If the same is done within three weeks from today, the respondent no.4 shall ensure that remaining payment of gratuity is made to the petitioner within four weeks of filing of the representation. Further, the respondent no.4 shall ensure that the payment of pension being made to the petitioner is in the proper scale, including any revision to which he may be entitled, within the same period.

¶28

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

¶29

Sanjeev/-

¶30

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
UploadingDate	26.10.2018
Transmission Date	NA

Nirmal Kumar Karan v. The Bihar State Power Holding Pvt. Ltd. Through The General Manager and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmal Kumar Karan v. The Bihar State Power Holding Pvt. Ltd. Through The General Manager 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

Gyanwati Kumari and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Daya Sagar Verma Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Punit Kumar and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Radhika Devi Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Saroj Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ranjit Kumar Tiwary Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.