Raj Kumar Mahto vs State of Jharkhand and Others

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.

According to petitioner, he was in the services of the State Electricity Board and while posted as Superintendent of Training in Patratu Thermal Power Station, Patratu, retired on 31st August, 1998. His grievance is that the respondents have not yet paid him the salary in the revised scale w.e.f. 1st April, 1997 nor paid the dues, such as difference of pay, leave encashment, gratuity, commutation of pension to which he is entitled in view of revision of pay. He has enclosed a chart showing the details of payment to which he is entitled.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, as it is for the respondents to determine firstly whether the petitioner is entitled for those benefits on revision of pay or not, instead of deciding the case on merit, the case is remitted with liberty to the petitioner to approach the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, P.T.P.S., Patratu, who will determine the claim. If any amount is found payable, the respondents will pay the arrears of retiral benefits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of representation.

So far as arrears of salary on revision of pay is concerned, the authorities will pay it as per their scheme, if payable to the petitioner.

On the other hand, if the respondents dispute any claim or part thereof, will communicate the ground to the petitioner.

This writ petition stands disposed of, with the aforesaid observations.