IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19484 of 2011 Tulsi Sah, S/o Late Sant Sah, Resident of Village – Sugaon, P.S. – Sugauli, Distt. – East Champaran at Motihari. ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar Electricity Board, Through it’s Secretary, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna -1. 2. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Tirhut Electric Supply Zone, Muzaffarpur. 3. The Electric Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Motihari. 4. The Executive Engineer, Motihari Division, Electricity Board, East Champaran, Motihari. 5. The Deputy Director Account, Tirhut Electric Supply Zone, Muzaffarpur. ……… Respondents ---------------------------------- 2 11.11.2011 Heard Dr. Amrendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajay Kumar Gautam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents/ Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. The petitioner, who retired as Class IV employee (Peon) from Motihari Electric Supply Division on 31.01.2011, has prayed for directing the respondents to pay all his retiral dues. It was submitted that after retirement only amount of provident fund was sanctioned by the authority concerned on 23.03.2011. However, even the said amount has not been paid. The petitioner has also filed representation before the authority concerned, but till date, neither any decision has been taken on his representation nor retiral dues have been paid. In this case, learned counsel for the Board points out that earlier this petitioner had approached this court for the same relief vide CWJC No. 15575 of 2011, which stood dismissed due to 2 non-prosecution and instead of filing restoration petition the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The court is of the opinion that since earlier writ petition was not decided on merit, there is no hurdle for the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition, and accordingly, the objection raised by learned counsel for the Board is not sustainable. In view of the fact that the petitioner retired in the month of January, 2011, and till date, nothing has been paid to the petitioner even after sanction of the amount of G.P.F., the court is of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondents particularly respondent no. 2 / General Manager-cum- Chief Engineer, Tirhut Electric Supply Zone, Muzaffarpur, to pay the sanctioned amount of G.P.F. to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. Regarding other claim, the petitioner is granted liberty to file a fresh representation before the respondent no. 2 within a period of six weeks from today. If such representation is filed, the respondent no. 2 is required to examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. If the respondent no. 2 considers the claim of the petitioner as genuine, he is required to pass order for clearing all the retiral dues within aforesaid time. Even in case of refusal, the respondent no. 2 is required to pass a speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of filing of such representation. 3 With above observation and direction the writ petition stands allowed. It goes without saying that the petitioner shall be entitled to get admissible interest on delayed payment. Praful ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)