Nawal Kishor Ray Vs Chairman cum Managing Director

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3782 of 2025

¶2

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

¶3

Nawal Kishor Ray S/O Late Ram Dahin Yadav, Resident of Village - Dihuri, PS - Parasbigha, District -Jahanabad.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

Chairman cum Managing Director, Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited, Patna.

¶7

Managing Director South Bihar Power Distribution Company, Patna.

¶8

General Manager (Finance and T.B.), Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited, Patna.

¶9

Electric Executive Engineer, Electrical Supply Division Jahanabad.

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

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

¶12

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Harendra Kumar Tiwary, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vivek Prasad, Adv. For the Resp. No. 2-4 : Mr. Vivek Prasad, Adv. Mr. Pratiyush Kumar, Adv. ======================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶14

2 04-03-2025

¶15

Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner, learned

¶16

Advocate for the State and learned Advocate for the South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “SBPDCL”), Patna.

¶17

The petitioner, who has been working as Skilled Khalasi in the Power House Jehanabad East in the office of the respondent no. 4 under Electrical Supply Division Jehanabad has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondent to pay the arrears of overtime amount for the period 2020-2024.

¶18

Referring to the averments made in the writ petition, it is contended that notwithstanding the petitioner

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.3782 of 2025(2) dt.04-03-2025 2/3

¶20

rendered his overtime work since 2020-2024 as Skilled Khalasi in the aforenoted office, but he has not been accorded his admissible remuneration for the due overtime work. For ventilating his grievance, the petitioner filed representation before the respondent no. 2, but no order has been passed till date.

¶21

Learned Advocate for the respondent SBPDCL has contended that no specific particulars of the period of overtime has been mentioned in the writ petition and since the petitioner has already preferred a representation, the same is required to be considered by the competent authority, after proper verification of the record.

¶22

In view of the submissions advanced by learned Advocate for the respective parties, the present writ petition stands disposed off with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to consider the claim of the petitioner, as raised in his representation dated 29.11.2024, the copy of which is marked as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, preferably within a period of eight weeks’, from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶23