IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9629 of 2008 Upendra Narayan Singh son of Late Sidheshwar Prasad Singh, Director, M/s Sanjeev Electrical Works Pvt. Ltd., 434, A.P. Colony, Pranavanand Road, Gaya, Pin- 823001. ……….Petitioner. Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board through its Secretary, Vidyut Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna-800021. 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna-800021. 3. The Membr (Transmission) Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna-21. 4. The Chief Engineer Transmission, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna-21. 5. The General Manager cum Chief Engineer, Transmission Zone-III, Gaya now shifted at Barrack no. 9, Near D.A.V. School, Bihar State Electricity Board Colony, New Punaichak, Patna -23. 6. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Transmission Circle, Biharsharif, at & P.O. Bihar, Distt. Nalanda. 7. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Transmission Divn. Bihar Sharif, at & P.O. Biharsharif, Distt. Nalanda. 8. The Financial Controller, -1 Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna-21. 9. The Accounts Officer Transmission Circle, Biharsharif, at & P.O. Biharsharif, Distt. –Nalanda. 10. The Dy. Director of Accounts (H.Q.) Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna-21. 11. Assistant Executive Engineer 220 KV maintenance Sub Division, Biharsharif, At & P.O. Biharsharif, Distt. Nalanda. ………Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner :Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, Advocate For the B.S.E.B. : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate. ------------- 03. 30.01.2009 The petitioner had done some extraordinary work for restoration of high tension line for the Electricity Board in the year 1998. It is curious that letter of intent was issued without fixing the payment rates. After almost one year - 2 - work was done, petitioner was made to enter into an agreement and the petitioner for paucity of advantage has left the work. However, petitioner thereafter represented to the Electricity Board for payment at rates which were not admissible in past to the petitioner or its sister concerned, but the same was not responding as such the petitioner has come to this Court. In my view, the respondent who first consider this aspect of the matter that for similar work petitioner and his sister concerned had earlier done paid at much higher rate constantly and now having taken work, they can not take possession and deprived the petitioner for his payment, which otherwise he may be bonafidely entitled. Let the Chief Engineer, Transmission reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders, whether he would like to recommend payment or not. The order must be speaking order and must be communicated to the petitioner within one month of representation being filed. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Vikash/- (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)