IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2755 of 2006 RAMESH JHA Versus THE CHAIRMAN,B.S.E.B. & ORS ----------- 03. 31.07.2008 The ethos and the spirit of working in the respondent Electricity Board is not only reflected in the indecision in their administrative decision making but is also reflected in the manner they are defending their cases. This forced the petitioner to file the present writ application. Petitioner, a permanent employee of the respondent Board had suffered serious injuries during performance of his duty. Looking at the extensive burn which he had suffered, he was referred to PMCH, Patna for treatment. At various points of time payments have been released in his favour to meet the medical expenses. Communication dated 4.12.1998 as contained in annexure-3 is one of the proof. Subsequently on 12.1.1999 also in terms of annexure-4 a decision was taken to release an additional sum of Rs.25, 000/- as advance. But, according to the petitioner, his ordeal may have been over with regard to the treatment and expenditure leaving its scar but the sanction which should have come in his favour more than a decade ago is still awaited. The writ application was filed on 28.2.2006. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Board on 21.2.2007 was granted two weeks’ indulgence to file a counter affidavit. The matter is now being taken up only today after the said adjournment. But this gap of more than one and half year is not enough for the respondents to file a - 2 - counter affidavit. That is what the Court meant when it is recorded that the ethos of respondent Electricity Board is also reflected on the litigation. The Court is left with no option but to dispose of the present writ application with a direction upon the Chairman of the Electricity Board, respondent No.1, that he shall get the mater examined at his level and take steps within a period of three months from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order for release or payment which was decided by a decision way back on 12.1.1999 vide Memo No. 27. Not only this, the petitioner under the service rules is entitled to medical reimbursement. That aspect has to be looked into by the respondent and decided within a period of three months. The Court is also of the opinion that a kind of responsibility should also be fixed as to why employees who have suffered injuries of kind while serving the Board are being inflicted further injuries by denying their rightful due and assistance at the right time. Fixing a responsibility, may be, will help the administration in cutting down the litigations which are generated because of their inaction. The writ application stands disposed of for strict compliance of the above direction. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)