IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9766 of 2008 Ram Parikha Singh, Son of Late Ram Krit Singh, resident of Village- Lalapur, P.O. Kudra, District-Kaimur( Bhabhua) -----------------------------Petitioner Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, through the Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board,Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna 3. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road,Patna 4. The Executive Engineer, Kaimur Electric Supply Division, Bhabhua, At, P.O. and District-Bhabhua 5. The Assistant Electric Engineer, Electric Supply Sub Division, Kudra, At & P.O. Kudra, District-Kaimur(Bhabhua) ------------------------------ Respondents. ---------------------------------- 02 24-10-2011 Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajay Kumar Gautam, learned counsel for the Respondent/Bihar State Electricity Board. The present writ petition was initially filed in the year 2008 with a prayer to direct the Respondent to make payment of gratuity, leave encashment, group insurance and G.P.F. along with admissible statutory interest. In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent/Bihar State Electricity Board. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of stand taken in the counter affidavit submits that it is true that all the retiral dues of the petitioner have already been paid, but the Respondent/Board has not made payment of Rs.15,000/-, which was deducted in the garb of loan taken by the petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner after deduction of Rs.15,000/- had represented before the Respondent no.4/ Executive Engineer, Kaimur Electric Supply Division, Bhabhua and made 2 specific statement that he had never taken any loan amount of Rs.15,000/- . Despite the fact that the petitioner filed representation, the Respondents have not taken any decision in the matter nor in the counter affidavit, any statement has been made by the Respondents regarding deduction of Rs.15,000/- , as stated in paragraphs 8 and 10 of the writ petition. The petitioner has made specific statement that in the year 1995 the petitioner had applied for loan for the purpose of marriage of his daughter. Thereafter, the petitioner was never informed as to whether loan amount was sanctioned or not nor the said loan was given to the petitioner. In view of the facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that in the counter affidavit the Respondents have not disputed the fact regarding the claim of Rs.15,000/- , the Court is of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the Respondent no.4 to examine the claim of the petitioner and if he feels that the claim of the petitioner is genuine , he is required to pass order for payment within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Even in case of refusal, Respondent no.4 is required to pass a speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)