Ram Ashish Prasad Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board Through Its Secretary and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant. - the learned counsels appearing for the respondents have stated and submitted that a huge consolidated arrears calculated on the basis of pay revision committee's report has accumulated and due to poor economic condition of the board, it has been planned at the management level of the apex court that the decision regarding such payment on the revised pay scale will be taken only after condition improves and funds are available.ordertapen sen, j.1. heard mr. rajendra prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner. mr. sidhartha ranjan for the jharkhand state electricity board and mr. mukesh kumar sinha, junior counsel to mr. mihir kumar jha for the bihar state electricity board.2. reference in this case may be made to the order dated 4.7.2003 by which this case was initially ordered to be placed before the lok adalat. however parties have stated that there was no settlement in the lok adalat and that is how the matter was listed again before this court on 17.12.2003. on that day mr. ajit kumar, learned counsel appearing for the bihar state electricity board had sought for two weeks time as a last indulgence for filing counter affidavit. today when the case was called out, it was noticed that no counter affidavit till date has been filed by the bihar state electricity board. in that view of the matter, the right of the bihar state electricity board to file counter affidavit in this case is hereby closed and with consent of the parties, this writ, petition is being disposed off at this stage.3. mr. rajendra prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has received gratuity as also all other payments calculated on the basis of the old scale, but he has not been paid any amount calculated on the basis of revision of pay scale towards different heads, i.e., gratuity and difference of pay. the learned counsels appearing for the respondents have stated and submitted that a huge consolidated arrears calculated on the basis of pay revision committee's report has accumulated and due to poor economic condition of the board, it has been planned at the management level of the apex court that the decision regarding such payment on the revised pay scale will be taken only after condition improves and funds are available.4. there is no dispute that the petitioner is entitled to the revised payments inasmuch as it has been stated at paragraphs 8 and 9 that there was a sanction made by the financial controller for payment of gratuity in the revised scale, but the same has not been released and is awaiting the decision of the board. similarly at paragraph 9 it has been stated that a requisition for diversion of funds towards arrears of pay scale has been made in the revised, scale, but in view of the statements made in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit this court directs that all payments on the revised scale shall be paid to the petitioner as soon as other employees are paids such revised amounts. however in the interests of justice it would be desirable if the board takes a decision in this regard within a shortest period taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner retired on 31.5.1997. almost 7 (seven) years are about to go by and the board is still coming forward with such pleas that the matter relating to payment of revised pay is awaiting the decision of the board. such a stand is not appreciated by this court and accordingly, the board is directed to take a final decision and communicated the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. the writ petition stands disposed off. there shall however be no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

Tapen Sen, J.

1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sidhartha Ranjan for the Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Junior Counsel to Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha for the Bihar State Electricity Board.

2. Reference in this case may be made to the order dated 4.7.2003 by which this case was initially ordered to be placed before the Lok Adalat. However parties have stated that there was no settlement in the Lok Adalat and that is how the matter was listed again before this Court on 17.12.2003. On that day Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Bihar State Electricity Board had sought for two weeks time as a last indulgence for filing counter affidavit. Today when the case was called out, it was noticed that no counter affidavit till date has been filed by the Bihar State Electricity Board. In that view of the matter, the right of the Bihar State Electricity Board to file counter affidavit in this case is hereby closed and with consent of the parties, this writ, petition is being disposed off at this stage.

3. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has received Gratuity as also all other payments calculated on the basis of the old scale, but he has not been paid any amount calculated on the basis of revision of pay scale towards different heads, i.e., Gratuity and difference of pay. The learned counsels appearing for the respondents have stated and submitted that a huge consolidated arrears calculated on the basis of pay revision committee's report has accumulated and due to poor economic condition of the Board, it has been planned at the management level of the Apex Court that the decision regarding such payment on the revised pay scale will be taken only after condition improves and funds are available.

4. There is no dispute that the petitioner is entitled to the revised payments inasmuch as it has been stated at paragraphs 8 and 9 that there was a sanction made by the financial controller for payment of Gratuity in the revised scale, but the same has not been released and is awaiting the decision of the Board. Similarly at paragraph 9 it has been stated that a requisition for diversion of funds towards arrears of pay scale has been made in the revised, scale, but in view of the statements made in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit this Court directs that all payments on the revised scale shall be paid to the petitioner as soon as other employees are paids such revised amounts. However in the interests of justice it would be desirable if the Board takes a decision in this regard within a shortest period taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner retired on 31.5.1997. Almost 7 (seven) years are about to go by and the Board is still coming forward with such pleas that the matter relating to payment of revised pay is awaiting the decision of the Board. Such a stand is not appreciated by this Court and accordingly, the Board is directed to take a final decision and communicated the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed off. There shall however be no order as to costs.