IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15759 of 2005 SANTOSH KUMAR PANDAY, S/o late Nagendra Nath Sharma, resident of village- Wasilpur (Arwal), P.O. and P.S.- Arwal, District- Arwal. ...... Petitioner. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELEC.BOARD, through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna. 3. The Member, Finance, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna. 4. The Finance Controller-1, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna. 5. The Director, Personnel, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna. 6. The General Manager –cum- Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Transmission Zone-3, Gaya. 7. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Transmission Circle, Bihar State Electricity Board, Gaya. 8. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Transmission Division, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bodh Gaya. 9. The Accounts Officer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Transmission Circle, Gaya. .... Respondents. ----------- 08- 28.4.2010 Heard Mr. Dhirendra Kumar (Munna) for the petitioner, and Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar for the respondents. The writ petition seeks a direction to the respondents to make payment of the commuted value of pension to the petitioner in the capacity of the heir and the legal representative of the late employee. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. Nagendra Nath Sharma, the petitioner’s late father, was in the services of the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’), and superannuated with effect from 31.1.2002, 2 while he was posted as Assistant Electrical Executive Engineer. His application for commutation of pension was allowed by order dated 20.11.2002 (Annexure-1). The employee died on 19.1.2004, and till then the commuted value of the pension was not paid to him, leading to the present writ petition for a direction to the respondent Board for payment of the same. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the late employee had submitted an application for commutation of pension which was allowed, in fact reduced pension was being paid to the employee, and the amount of commuted value of pension was not paid to him. Consequent upon the bifurcation of the undivided State of Bihar in terms of the provisions of the Bihar Reorganization Act 2000, the present State of Jharkhand was carved out of the undivided State of Bihar. Consequently the Bihar State Electricity Board was divided which resulted in grave financial crisis with the respondent Board. Therefore, the Board issued a departmental circular dated 17.11.2003, whereby it ordered that, in order to tied over the financial crisis, it had been decided not to make payment of the commuted value of pension, and instead full payment of pension shall be paid to the employees. The circular further stated that any amount of the superannuated employee 3 retained by the Board shall be returned to him. In the present case also, the amount so deducted by the Board in lieu of payment of commuted value of pension, and now decided not to be paid in terms of the said circular, was deposited in the employee’s account on 26.6.2004. In other words, a sum of Rs.27,970/- was deposited, being the amount deducted from the monthly pension and retained by the Board in lieu of commuted value of pension. We are mindful of the position that the employee had already died on 19.1.2004, and a sum of Rs.27,970/- was deposited in the employee’s account on 26.6.2004. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be right for this Court to saddle the Board with any further liability. This aspect of the matter has received the attention of this Court in the case of Mohan Prasad Asthana Vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board and others (2005 (4) P.L.J.R. 47). It goes without saying that it will be open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with law to withdraw the amount from his father’s bank account. 4. In the result, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/