Dismissed

Malay Kumar Singh v. The Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited

Patna HC19 Nov 2024L.P.A/581/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal, holding no interference is warranted. The appellant failed to challenge a 2000 penalty order within the lifetime of the deceased employee, who subsequently accepted family pension based on that order after his death in 2009.

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed with no interference in the order of the learned Single Judge.

Malay Kumar Singh Vs The Bihar State Power… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.581 of 2021 In

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8599 of 2017

¶3

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

¶4

Malay Kumar Singh Son of Late Dhir Narayan Singh, Resident of MIG House No. 338, Kankarbagh Colony, P.O.-Lohiya Nagar, P.S.-Kankerbagh, Patna, District-Patna.

¶5

... ... Appellant/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited through The Chairmancum-Managing Director, Vidyut Bhawan, J.L. Nehru Marg, Patna.

¶8

The Secretary, Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, J.L. Nehru Marg, Patna.

¶9

The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, J.L. Nehru Marg, Patna.

¶10

The Chief Engineer, Supply and Distribution, Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, J.L. Nehru Marg, Patna.

¶11

The Chief Engineer, Planning, Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, J.L. Nehru Marg, Patna.

¶12

... ... Respondent/s

¶13

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Manendra Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)

¶16

7 19-11-2024 The appellant Malay Kumar Singh who is the son of deceased employee Dhir Narayan Singh has assailed the order of punishment in a departmental enquiry to the extent of restricting the pension to 75 % by withholding 25%. Such order was passed on 28.01.2000, the same has not been assailed by the deceased employee Dhir Narayan Singh during his lifetime from

¶17

Patna High Court L.P.A No.581 of 2021(7) dt.19-11-2024 2/4

¶18

28.01.2000 till his death in the year 2009. In the year 2009 deceased employee’s wife has been extended family pension. When matter stood thus deceased Dhir Narayan Singh son Malay Kumar Singh-appellant has assailed the punishment order dated 28.01.2000 in the year 2017. During the intervening period much water has flown. In fact cause of action accrued to the wife of the deceased Dhir Narayan Singh as on the date of death of Dhir Narayan Singh. Thereafter family pension has been accepted by wife of Dhir Narayan Singh from 2009 on wards. In other words, family pension has been fixed with reference to the fixation of pension with reference to the penalty order dated 28.01.2000. With these dates and events appellant Malay Kumar Singh has slept over the matter in so far as challenging the penalty order dated 28.01.2000 for about 17 long years therefore, no interference is warranted in so far as order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.08.2021 passed in C.W.J.C No. 8599 of 2017. Accordingly, Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed.

¶19

At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that deceased Dhir Narayan Singh approached this Court in C.W.J.C No. 694 of 2013 in which he is stated to have assailed the penalty order as well as appellate authority’s order

¶20

Patna High Court L.P.A No.581 of 2021(7) dt.19-11-2024 3/4

¶21

dated 01.10.2012. During pendency of the C.W.J.C No. 694 of 2013, deceased Dhir Narayan Singh died and the same has been recorded in the order dated 01.09.2016 and it reads as under :

¶22

“Learned counsel for the parties are

¶23

present.

¶24

The petitioner has deceased.

¶25

This matter was adjourned because it was stated at the bar by Mr. Bajarangi Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had deceased. To enable learned counsel to obtain instructions as to whether the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner would be interested in pursuing the matter that the proceedings were adjourned on 11.8.2016 and again on 18.8.2016. The matter thereafter been taken up today when Mr. Bajarangi Lal informs that he has no instructions in the matter. In the circumstance in absence of any petitioner to the writ petition, it can onl consigned to the records.

¶26

The writ petition is accordingly disposed

¶27

of.”

¶28

Having regard to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 01.09.2016 legal heirs of Late Dhir Narayan Singh had a cause of action in so far as filing civil review or M.J.C to recall the order dated 01.09.2016 and restore C.W.J.C No. 694 of 2013 while substituting the petitioner Late Dhir Narayan Singh to that of legal heirs. Moreover, no liberty has been

¶29

Patna High Court L.P.A No.581 of 2021(7) dt.19-11-2024 4/4

¶30

granted to the legal heirs to file separate writ petition so as to file independent writ petition. On the other hand, legal heirs of deceased Dhir Narayan Singh have filed writ petition bearing C.W.J.C No. 8599 of 2017 and the appellant in the present appeal have not sought any permission of this Court in filing independent writ petition namely, C.W.J.C No. 8599 of 2017 taking note of these dates and events the appellants has not made out a case.

¶31

(P. B. Bajanthri, J)

¶32

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)

¶33

Prakash/- U

Malay Kumar Singh v. The Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malay Kumar Singh v. The Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babita @ Fullo Devi Vs Niwas Pandit

M/s Spicy Beverage Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Manoranjan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs Tannu Priya

Monawwar Alam Vs The State of Bihar

Chhotelal Vs The State of Bihar