IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12841 of 2006 AKHIL KRISHNA MITRA, Son of Late Kulin Krishna Mitra, Resident of Mohalla- Anantpur, P.S.- Chutia, P.S.- Doranda, Town and District- Ranchi. ………. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Finance Commissioner- cum-Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Bihar State Electricity Board, through its Secretary, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna-1. 3. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna-1. 4. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna-1. 5. The Member Finance, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna-1. ……….. Respondents ---------- 2 22.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.P. Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel No. 2, who appears on behalf of respondent no. 1/State and Sri Dharmeshwar Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 5/ Bihar State Electricity Board. The present case has got a checkered history relating to retiral dues. On earlier occasion the matter had gone up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and a number of writ petitions were filed. The present writ petition was filed in the year 2006 with a prayer to direct the respondents for re-fixation of pension of the petitioner alongwith other reliefs. The petitioner had retired from Electricity Board long back in the year 1984. In this case a detailed counter affidavit was filed in the month of December 2007 on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 5/Bihar State Electricity Board and in paragraph no. 15 of the 2 counter affidavit the respondent Board had stated that due to financial crunch caused by bifurcation of respondent Board into B.S.E.B. and J.S.E.B. resulting in drastic loss in monthly revenue collection and also accumulation of heavy pensionary liabilities the payment could not be made. It would be appropriate to mention paragraph no. 15 of the counter affidavit which is as follows: “That in reply to the statements made in paragraphs 24 to 25 of the writ application, it is stated that as per order and judgment of this Hon’ble Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3307 of 2002 action has already been taken. Pension with effect from 1.1.1997 has been revised but the petitioner has not received his pension and retiral benefits from the headquarters of the respondent Board. It is further stated and submitted that for the persons retired before/after 31.3.1997, the payment order of due pension and due salary in 30 equal instalments has been issued vide Board’s office order No. 3527 dated 23.11.2004 but in view of financial crunch caused by the bifurcation of the respondent Board into BSEB and JSEB resulting drastic loss in monthly revenue collection and at the other hand accumulation of heavy pensionary liabilities, the payment is pending.” The matter was yesterday taken up for hearing at the point of admission and a question was put by the court as to 3 whether in view of statement made in aforesaid paragraph payment was made or not. Accordingly, case was passed over for enabling Sri Dharmeshwar Mishra to get up-to-date instruction, particularly, in view of the fact that counter affidavit in this case was filed long back in the year 2007. At the time of hearing, Sri Dharmeshwar Mishra on the basis of instruction had made categorical statement that as per earlier statement payment was already made from Jharkhand State Electricity Board. It was further submitted by Sri Mishra, that even recently in 2009 his pension was revised and in the month of October, 2010 arrear of revised pension has also been directed to be paid by Jharkhand State Electricity Board. In view of stand taken by Sri Dharmeshwar Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents/Electricity Board, the court is of the opinion that there is no point to further keep the matter pending. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Praful ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)