Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

    Arvind Kumar Gupta Petitioner(S) v. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director And Others (S).

    Ananda Sen, J.:— The petitioner has claimed overtime allowance from April 1996 to March, 2001 and thereafter for the period from August 2012 to November 2016.

    2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has work overtime for the period from April 1996 to March, 2001 and from August 2012 to November 2016 as Assistant Comptroller in Garhwa Road Sub-Division under the respondents, therefore he is entitled to get the aforesaid relief. He further submits that the respondent authorities have not paid the amount and thus, a direction may be given to respondent concerned for payment of overtime allowance for the period aforesaid.

    3. Counsel for the Bihar Power Holding Company submits that the claim of the petitioner with regard to overtime allowance for the period from April 1996 to March 2001 cannot be granted due to laches on the part of the petitioner and the same is time barred. Mr. Rahul Kumar, counsel for the Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (JUVNL) submits that the claim of the petitioner with regard to overtime allowance for the period from August 2012 to November, 2016 is under consideration. In support of their contentions, counsel for the Bihar Power Holding Company as well as JUVNL relies upon the order dated 31.8.2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 172 of 2010 by which, the same and similar claim by others was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner, on the ground of limitation.

    4. After hearing the parties and after going through the order passed in LPA No. 172 of 2010, I find that the claim of the petitioner for payment of overtime allowance for the period from April 1996 to March 2001 is absolutely time barred, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

    5. So far as the period of overtime for the period from August, 2012 to November, 2016 is concerned, since in para 11 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that respondent authorities are taking steps and requisition for fund has also been sent to Nigam Headquarters and the same will be paid on receipt of the fund, I direct the respondent concerned to take necessary steps at the earliest so that the payment to the petitioner with regard to overtime allowance for the period from August 2012 to November, 2016 be paid within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

    6. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Arvind Kumar Gupta P... v. Jharkhand Urja Vikas...
    (Feb 1, 2019)