IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.101 of 2009 1. THE CHAIRMAN,B.S.ELECTRICITY BOARD, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER-CUM-CHIEF ENGINEER, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRANSMISSION ZONE, PATNA. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA. –RESPONDENTS- APPELLANTS. Versus MADAN MOHAN SINGH SON OF LATE SHYAM DEO SINGH, ASSISTANT OPERATOR 132/33 K.V. GRID SUBSTATION JHAKKANPUR, PATNA. --- PETITIONER- RESPONDENT. ----------- 5/ 22-04-2009 The respondent ( writ petitioner) is Assistant in the permanent establishment of the Bihar State Electricity Board. His claim is that he had worked overtime to the tune of 2,56,693.48. This Court in C.W.J.C. No.8973 of 2003 allowed the petitioner to file representation before the respondents-Board. The writ petitioner filed representation before the respondent-Board. It is submitted by the appellant- Electricity Board that in compliance of the order passed in C.W.J.C.No.8973 of 2003 the legitimate dues of overtime for 975 hours has already been sanctioned and accordingly a sum of Rs.88,968.70 has already been paid to the writ petitioner-respondent. It is submitted by the appellant- Electricity Board that in spite of that the learned Single Judge has observed that “the petitioner is advised to file a representation and when he files such representation the respondents are obliged to consider his claim in the - 2 - 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”. It is the contention of the Board that maximum overtime wage that can be paid is 50 hrs. a quarter and 150 hrs. an year as per Circular No. 451/95. It is further stated that there is no record to show that writ petitioner had worked overtime than that was allowed by the Board and petitioner can only be paid according to rule. In any event it is for the claimant to prove that he actually worked overtime than that was allowed by the employer. He cannot contend that he is entitled to overtime wage as he is liable to work whenever there was breakdown in his area of work or on all 24 hours a day as he is liable to be called for work. All these matters can be considered at the time of deciding the representation. Hence there is no need to file an appeal against the impugned judgment. With the aforesaid observation, this appeal is disposed of. BTiwary/ ( J. B. Koshy, CJ ) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J )