IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.929 of 2008 1. Md Shaquil Akhtar s/o Md. Serajuddin, Assistant Operator, 132/23 K.V.Grid, Sub-Station – Bari Pahari P.S. – Bharsharif, District – Nalanda 2. Nawal Kishore Singh s/o late Dwarika Singh, 220/132 Suer Grid, P.O.- Ramna Bigha, District – Nalanda 3. Arun Kumars/o late Yadunandan Singh, Retd. Assistant Operator, 132/33 K.V. Grid, Sub-station, Hospital Road, Bari Pahari, Biharsharif, Nalanda …….. Appellants Versus 1. The Chairman, B.S.E.B. , Bailey Road, Patna 2. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Transmission Zone -3, Chandauli, Gaya 3. The Superintending Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board/Transmission Circle Biharsharif, Ranabigha, Nalanda 4. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Transmission Division, Biharsharif, P.O. – Ranabigha, District – Nalanda ………. Respondents ----------- For the appellants: Mr. Bindhyachal Singh Singh Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocates For the respondents : None P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 27th November, 2008 Md. Shaquil Akhtar, Nawal Kishore Singh and Arun Kumar (appellants herein) claim to have worked overtime and prayed for overtime allowance/wages. Initially nothing seems to have been done by the Bihar State Electricity Board (for short, „ the Board‟) and, consequently, these employees filed writ petition being 2 CWJC. No.8973 of 2003 before this court. This court disposed of the writ petition on 2nd of March, 2005 by directing the Board and its authorities to consider the grievance raised by them and make payment of due amount. Consequently, the Board considered the claim of these employees; each one of them was found to have worked overtime (1282 hrs., 3708 hrs., and 2600 hrs., respectively) and paid overtime allowance which was found admissible in the light of Board‟s order no. 451 dated 19th January, 1995. The Single Judge having recorded these facts found that the grievance of the petitioners (appellants) has been redressed and nothing remains to be decided. 2. The Board‟s order no.451 dated 19th January, 1995 prohibits its officers from taking overtime work from the office staff beyond particular hours. The relevant portion of the office order no.451 dated 19th January, 1995 reads thus: “In suppression of all previous orders in respect of overtime issued by the Board from time to time it has now been decided as follows:- (i) No over-time work shall be taken from the office staff (i.e. Secretariat, Clerical, Accounts Store Personnel etc.) including class II employee posted either at the headquarter of the Board or in the offices subordinate to the Board. In case it comes necessary to take work from such employees on holidays and rest days, compensatory off or holidays should be allowed to them. Such compensatory off of holidays should be allowed to be accumulated be availed in the same calendar year after which the same will automatically lapse. (ii) Overtime work shall also not be normally taken from the Factory workers. However, exemptions can be taken under the following conditions, and that too very 3 rarely and when the necessary arises:- (a) Firstly – when it becomes unavoidable for attending to urgent repairs, breakdown work and to cover absenteeism in shift operations. Leave to the operation staff should be managed in such a manner that no. O.T. is required for the shift operation. Strict watch should be kept on habitual absentees. (b) Secondly – limit of booking workers on overtime work will be limited to 50 hours per quarter after observing the formalities as laid down in Section 64 of the Factory Act 1948. (iii) Over time return will be scrutinized by the General Manager –cum-Chief Engineers of the Area Board, Power Station and Transmission Organization. (iv) In case of great exigency overtime may be allowed upto a limit of 75 hours in a quarter with a written permission from the Chief Inspector of Factories, Bihar as per provision of Section 86 of the Factories Act, 48.” 3. The counsel for the appellants seeks to challenge the legality of the aforesaid circular. He relied upon a decision of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Nripendra Narayan Sinha vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi and others (Writ Petition No.7200 of 2005) decided on 5th May, 2006 in this regard. 4. We may immediately state here that no declaration has been sought by the petitioner in the writ petition that the office order no.451 dated 19th January, 1995 was unconstitutional or otherwise bad in law. Some ground has, of course, been taken in the writ petition that the order no.451 dated 19th January, 1995 is contrary to the certified standing orders. 5. As to whether the office order dated 19th January, 1995 is inconsistent with the certified standing orders or not, has to 4 be put in issue directly before the competent forum and not indirectly. As indicated above no declaration has been sought in the writ petition about illegality of that circular nor this aspect seems to have been pressed before the Single Judge. In a situation like this, in the interest of justice, we grant liberty to the appellants to approach the appropriate forum for payment of unpaid overtime wages. We further observe that in the event of the appellants‟ approaching the appropriate forum in this regard, the decision given by the Single judge or the present order passed by us shall not be an impediment for adjudication of their claim on merits. 6. Letters patent appeal, accordingly does not deserve to be admitted. It is disposed of in limine with liberty as noticed above. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/-