IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2827 of 2007 MADAN MOHAN SINGH W i t h CWJC No.2976 of 2007 TRIBHUWAN PRASAD Versus THE CHAIRMAN,B.S.E.B. & ORS ----------- 2/ 23/9/2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent Board. A counter affidavit has been filed in C.W.J.C. No.2827/07 which is commonly relied on by the respondent Board in both the applications. The petitioners, who are stated to be assistants in the permanent establishment of the respondent Board, came to this Court with a claim for their dues of overtime work in C.W.J.C. No.8973/03 when liberty was given to file the representation to be disposed in accordance with law. M.J.C. No.2804/05 followed upon the same when show cause was filed that overtime allowance has been paid to the extent of 50 hrs. for every three month. His grievance is that he has in fact worked overtime for 2174 hrs when payment for only 976 hrs. of overtime has been made. In a financial claim of 2,56,693.48 he has been paid 1,67,724.78. The respondent Board has filed a counter affidavit. It acknowledges that the petitioner worked overtime, but contends by relying on its own circulars - 2 - that no overtime work can be taken over 50 hrs. during a quarter and 150 hrs. during a year under circular 451 dated 19.1.1995. It then goes to suggest that the petitioner worked forcibly overtime. He has not produced any papers and documents in support thereof. The Board id s State under Article-12 of the Constitution of India. The Court would have expected the Board to act with fairness and not litigate in the manner of a private litigant. At best there shall be an issue if the petitioner has actually worked or not beyond stipulated hours. If the respondents have taken work from him beyond the stipulated hours, the petitioner cannot suffer. It is those who took work from him beyond the stipulated hours in the higher echelons who shall have to bear the burden of the overtime allowance for the period beyond that as prescribed. The Court finds it very peculiar that the board alleges that it has no control over its employees who work overtime forcibly. If that be so, an act by Japanese standards, the board would have been a vibrant institution by now. There is no whisper of a suggestion that if there was any malfeasance efficiency on the part of the petitioner, why no disciplinary action was taken against him. The defence of the respondents does not hold - 3 - good. The petitioner is advised to file a representation. When he files such representation the respondents are obliged to consider his claim in the context of their own records on the issue of ‘break downs’ in supply etc. to arrive at the determination of his claim for actual overtime. This consideration shall have to be done in accordance with the order of the Jharkhand High Court in C.W.J.C. No(s).7200/05 dated 5.5.2006 inclusive of the directions contained in paragraph-14 of the order. Let such representation of the petitioner be disposed by a reasoned and speaking order and the legitimate dues, if any , be paid within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ applications stand allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha,J )