IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.953 of 2008 MURLIDHAR RAI Versus THE CHAIRMAN,B.S.E.B & ORS ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Ranjan Kr. Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent B.S.E.B: Mr. Vinay Kriti Singh, Advocate Mr.Vijay Kr. Verma. Adv. ------ 5 23.3.2009 Petitioner-appellant’s case is that he worked for 2112 hours’ over time and he was not paid wages for the same. When the payment of overtime was not made the petitioner –appellant along with other approached this court by filing a writ petition and this court directed the petitioner-appellant to file a detailed claim before the competent authority who was directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law. When the respondent did not take any action the petitioner appellant filed M.J.C. No 2805 of 2005 for implementation of the earlier order in which the respondents filed a counter affidavit stating therein that against the claim of 2174 hours of over-time only 976 hours of overtime was sanctioned and paid. Petitioner is entitled to overtime wages also for the period he worked overtime. Merely because there is provision for calling him any time after the duty hours he is not entitled for the entire period of service excluding scheduled working hours. We have perused the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3059 of 2007, according to which it appears that the grievance of the petitioner- appellant has already been redressed. In this view of the matter, we do not - 2 - want to interfere with the impugned order and the appeal is dismissed. Rahman/ (J.B. Koshy, CJ) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)