IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3183 of 2008 Ramdeo Pandit, Son of Late Babu Lal Pandit, resident of Mohalla- Ghoghari Tanr, P.S. Civil Lines, District-Gaya -----------------Petitioner Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, through the Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 2. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 3. The Financial Controller, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 4. General Manger-cum- Chief Engineer, Magadh Electric Supply Area, Gaya 5. Executive Engineer, Magadh Electric Supply Division, Gaya (Rural) 6. Deputy Director of Accounts, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road,Patna-1 7. Deputy Director of Accounts, Electric Supply Area, Gaya --------------------------------- Respondents. ---------------------------------- 02 17-08-2011 Heard Sri Vivekanand Vivek, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shri Ganesh , learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent/Bihar State Electricity Board. The present writ petition was filed in the month of February, 2008 with a prayer to direct the Respondents to make payment of retiral dues of the petitioner. The petitioner retired with effect from 30.04.2007 as Switch Board Operator, Grade-II, Gaya. In this case, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of Respondent/ Electricity Board in the year 2009, wherein it was indicated that all the retiral dues have already been paid to the petitioner. Such fact has been mentioned in paragraph nos. 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that the petitioner has already been paid all retiral dues and he is getting pension, but it was submitted by him that retiral dues were 2 paid at belated stage despite the fact that amount under some of the heads were sanctioned long back in the year,2007. It was submitted that payment of the amount of G.P.F., Leave Encashment, Group Saving Scheme and Gratuity was made in the year 2008 and on delayed payment, the petitioner was entitled to get interest. Learned counsel for the Respondent/Board submits that from Annexures-2 and 3 to the writ petition, it is evident that while issuing sanction order, it was indicated that interest till the date of sanction was calculated. Fact remains that even after the order of sanction, which was passed in the year 2007, payment, was made in the year 2008 and, as such, on delayed payment, the petitioner was entitled to get interest. However, in absence of specific pleading by the parties, it would be difficult for this Court to record definite finding for paying interest. Since almost all the grievances of the petitioner have already been redressed, there is no need to keep the matter further pending. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a representation in respect of claim of interest before Respondent no.4/ General Manager-cum- Chief Engineer, Magadh Electric Supply Area, Gaya within a period of six weeks from today . If such representation is filed by the petitioner, the Respondent no.4 is required to examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within three months from the date of filing of such representation. If Respondent no.4 considers the claim of the petitioner as genuine, he is required to 3 pass order for payment within the aforesaid time. Even in case of refusal, the Respondent no.4 is required to pass speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner within three months from the date of filing of such representation. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)