CIVIL APPEAL 21 of 2010 on 31 July 2002

1. Jharkhand State Electricity Board through its Chairman officiating at Engineering Bhawan, Ranchi its Chairman officiating at Engineering Bhawan, Ranchi

2. The Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi

3. The Deputy Director of Accounts,

Engineering Bhawan, HEC Township, Ranchi

4. The Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman officiating at Bailey Raod, Patna, Bihar

5. The General Manager, Patratu Thermal Power Station, Ramgarh......Respondents Power Station, Ramgarh......Respondents …

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH

…

For the Petitioner: - Mr. Dhananjay Kr. Pathak, Adv.For the JSEB: - Ms. A. K. Pandey & Rohit, Advs.For the BSEB: - Ms. Manoj Tandon & Kumari Rashmi, Advs....

07/03.12.2014 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is son of late Prem Shankar Prasad, who retired on 31.07.2002 as Head Foreman, M.M.-2, Division-6, Patratu Thermal Power Station, Patratu i.e. before creation of the successor State of Jharkhand as also constitution of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board. The father of the petitioner died thereafter on 12.02.2002.

The petitioner has made a claim that he has entitled to revised gratuity and pension, leave encashment and arrears of salary on account of pay revision implementation due to his father.

The case of the petitioner is that after death of his father, he has been paid retirement benefits as his mother had pre-deceased his father and all his brothers and sisters have submitted affidavit in his favour for accepting the retirement benefits of the deceased employee. It is submitted that only ground to detain the revised gratuity even as per the affidavit of the respondent-BSEB is that the quarter in question has not been vacated and no dues certificate has not been produced, though the said quarter has already been vacated by the petitioner and certificate to that effect has been issued by the Estate Officer, PTPS, Hazaribagh vide Memo No. 155 dated 14.03.2002 also charging penal rent to the extent of Rs. 19,523/-, which has been paid by the petitioner.

It is submitted that the petitioner's father having retired from the erstwhile Bihar State Electricity Board, liability in relation to pension and gratuity are borne out by the BSEB in terms of the arrangement made between the respondent-Boards and also would be evident vide letter dated 21.09.2007, Annexure-C to the counter affidavit of the respondent-BSEB itself.

However, it is fairly submitted that rest of the claim relating to arrears of salary on account of revised pay and leave encashment etc. are subject matter of dispute between the two boards for which they are agitating and the same is also relating to division of assets and liabilities between the two boards.

Arguments

The present claim of the petitioner for revised gratuity and pension can be considered and paid by the respondent-Board. Even as per the stand of the respondent-BSEB, who have filed their affidavit, it is stated at para-9 that amount of Rs. 1,31,092/- though sanctioned on account of gratuity, was not paid due to non submission of quarter vacation report and no dues certificate. They have relied upon Annexure-C dated 21.09.2007 and made statement at para-10 that if any revision is permissible in the eye of law, it has to be paid by the JSEB. It however appears from the said letter that BSEB has accepted its liability to make payment of pension and other retiral benefits such as gratuity, GPF and GSS to such pensioner, who had retired from the office of erstwhile BSEB falling under the territorial jurisdiction of JSEB and draw their pension from the BSEB as on 01.04.2001. The said letter, however, indicates that arrears of revision in pay and leave encashment, DA, arrears of increments etc. to the pensioner of erstwhile BSEB, who have retired from the office falling under the territorial jurisdiction of JSEB is payable by the JSEB.

The point in controversy is clear that the petitioner's father having retired from the erstwhile BSEB falling now within the territorial jurisdiction of JSEB, is entitled for revised gratuity and pension from BSEB. It further appears that the petitioner has vacated the official quarter and certificate to that effect has been enclosed as Annexure-B to his reply to the counter affidavit. However, the claim relating to revised leave encashment and pay is dependent upon determination of assets and liabilities, which are ongoing dispute between the two boards. Therefore, for the subsisting claim relating to revised gratuity and pension, the respondent-BSEB is directed to pay admissible gratuity and pension to the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of 10 week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that some more amount of gratuity is admissible to the father of the petitioner as per the sanction order dated 02.08.2001 issued by the BSEB, Annexure-A to the rejoinder.

The petitioner is at liberty to bring to the notice to the competent official of the BSEB, who shall consider the same in accordance with law. The petitioner is also at liberty to raise remaining claim towards arrears of leave encashment and pay upon adjudication of the issue relating to distribution of assets and liabilities between the successor Boards.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)