Madan Lal Rai vs Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Others

Tapen Sen, J.—Heard the parties.

In view of the nature of the order that this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary, at this stage, to ask the respondents to file any affidavit.

It is indeed painful and shocking to this Court to note that although this petitioner superannuated on 31.3.2004 and although he filed representations before the concerned authorities, yet the respondents have not taken care to release the entire post retiral dues, such as the ones enumerated/stated in paragraph of the writ petition.

Let it be recorded that pension is no longer a bounty, but it is a right. In that view of the matter, this Court grants one opportunity to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to immediately and forthwith attend to the case of the petitioner and deal with the same and take a final decision in accordance with law. To that extent therefore, this Court grants liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with a copy of this order before the respondent No. 2, who shall attend to the grievances of the petitioner and do the needful in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of such representation. If there is any breach of this order, the Chairman of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board as also the General Manager (respondent Nos. 1 and 2) shall be held responsible for inaction on their part.

The writ petition stands disposed off.

Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Board.