IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.10528 of 2007 ====================================================== Ganeshi Yadav, Son of Late Tugani Yadav, Resident of Village – Tendua Pokhar, Post +P.S.+District – Aurangabad (M), Bihar. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, through its Chairman/Secretary, Vidut Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna. 2. The General Manager cum Chief Engineer, Magadh Electric Supply Region, Gaya. 3. The Deputy Director of Accounts, Magadh Electric Supply, Region Gaya. 4. The Executive Electricity Engineer Supply Division, Aurangabad. 5. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Aurangabad (Bihar). .... .... Respondents ====================================================== 3 12-07-2011 Heard Sri Anil Kumar Singh No. 6, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Vijay Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents/Bihar State Electricity Board. The writ petition was filed in the year 2007 with a prayer to direct the respondents to make payment of all the retiral dues. In this case no counter affidavit has been filed till date. However, on instruction Sri Vijay Kumar Verma, learned counsel for respondents / Board submits that during the pendency of the writ petition all the retiral dues of the petitioner have been paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to dispute the statement. In view of stand taken by learned counsel for the Board the court is of the opinion that writ petition can be disposed of. Accordingly, same stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach respondent no. 2/General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Magadh Electric Supply Region, Gaya, if still any grievance exists. If any representation is filed by the petitioner before respondent no. 2 the respondent no. 2 is required to examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law redressing the grievance of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation. The respondent no. 2, if considers the claim of the petitioner as genuine, is required to pass order for payment within aforesaid time. Even in case of refusal respondent no. 2 is required to pass speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner within aforesaid time. PRAFUL (Rakesh Kumar, J)