IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9161 of 2011 UDAY KUMAR SHARMA S/O- LATE KEDAR NATH SHARMA, R/O- VILLAGE/MOHALLA- MADHRAPUR, P.O.- MADHURAPUR, P.S.- BIDUPUR, DISTRICT- VAISHALI Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH IT’S SECRETARY VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER-CUM-CHIEF ENGINEER, KOSI ELECTRIC SUPPLY AREA, SAHARSA. 4. THE ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ELECTRIC SUPPLY CIRCLE, PURNEA. 5. THE ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION, KATIHAR. 6. THE JOINT SECRETARY BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. For the petitioner : Mr. Narendra Kumar Jha, Advocate. 2 20.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No body has appeared on behalf of the State. Petitioner has filed the present application seeking quashment of order contained in letter bearing Memo No. 1069 dated 12.8.2010 (Annexure-5). Father of the petitioner was serving the Bihar State Electricity Board (for short the Board). He died on 4.12.1987. The payments of a sum of Rs. 27,000/- under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the Rules framed thereunder was made on 7.6.1988. In the year 2007, petitioner being one of the sons of the deceased employee, approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No.368 of 2006. Various grievances were raised therein. This Court by a proceeding dated 30.10.2007 (Annexure-2) disposed of the said writ petition granting him liberty to file appropriate representation for the left over dues/claims which was directed - 2 - to be disposed of within a stipulated period. Petitioner, thereafter, again approached this Court seeking initiation of contempt proceeding against the respondent by filing M.J.C. No. 4862 of 2008 which was considered and disposed of by order dated 31.3.2010 (Annexure-4). Relevant portion of the order is extracted hereinbelow: “Issue of lesser payment under the Workmen Compensation Act is a matter of verification and the respondents authorities would be well advised to verify whether there is discrimination in award of the compensation to the father of the petitioner vis-a-vis widow of late Sukhdeo Paswan and the decision in this regard should be communicated to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt or communication of a copy of this order. “ In the light of the said order, the respondent authorities passed an order contained in letter No. 1069 dated 12.8.2010 which has been impugned in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner was granted less compensation. The said grievance was considered by this Court while dealing with the contempt proceeding. A claim of discrimination in making payment of compensation amount was also raised. This Court, in the light of the aforesaid submission, directed the authorities to take a fresh decision on the said issue. The order, which has been impugned in the present proceeding, discloses adequate reasons to show that the case of late Sukhdeo Paswan cannot be equated with the case of - 3 - the deceased father of the petitioner. It is seen from the said order that compensation under the Act was paid to the deceased employee 21 years after his death. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any similarity between the two cases. Furthermore, the aforesaid prayer at the instance of the petitioner cannot be entertained by this Court since after payment and receipt of the compensation amount in 1988, the employee or his widow or any of his dependents did not raise any objection thereto for more than 20 years. For all these reasons, this Court does not find merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj (Kishore K. Mandal, J)