IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10579 of 2007 Chandeshwar Paswan, Son of Late Narain Paswan, Resident of Village – Koria Pipra, P.O. - Koria Pipra, P.S. - Parihar, District – Sitamarhi. Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna (Hereinafter referred to as Electricity Board). 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. 4. The Financial Controller-I, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. 5. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Tirhut Area, Muzaffarpur. 6. The Deputy Director of Accounts, Bihar State Electricity Board, Tirhut Area, Muzaffarpur. 7. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Sitamarhi. 8. The Accounts Officer (Nidhi), Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. ----------- 3 08.07.2011 Heard Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vijay Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents/Bihar State Electricity Board. The petitioner has prayed for directing the respondents to make payment of all his retiral dues. Of-course in this case no counter affidavit has been filed but on instruction Sri Vijay Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the Board submits that during the pendency of the writ petition all the retiral dues of the petitioner have been paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is true that payments have been made but such payments were made at a belated stage for which the petitioner was entitled to claim interest. In view of the facts and circumstances particularly the fact that there is nothing on record for coming to a definite finding regarding the delay this court may not adjudicate on the point of interest. However, liberty can be granted to the petitioner to approach the competent authority i.e. respondent no. 3/Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna in respect of his claim of interest. If such representation is filed before the respondent no. 3 court expects that respondent no. 3 will examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law preferably within a period of four months from the date of filing of such representation. If respondent no. 3 considers the claim of the petitioner as genuine he is required to pass order for payment within aforesaid time. Even in case of refusal respondent no. 3 is required to pass speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of filing of such representation. The writ petition stands disposed of. Praful (Rakesh Kumar, J.)