SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Pat) 441

NAGENDRA RAI, P.N.YADAV
Bihar State Electricity Board – Appellant
Versus
Man Bahadur,Kedar Nath Verma – Respondent


Judgment

1. Both the appeals are barred by limitation.

2. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the averments made in the limitation petitions, we are satisfied that sufficient ground has been made out to condone the delay in filing these appeals, Accordingly, the delay in filing these appeals are condoned.

3. The point involved in both the appeals are the same and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

4. LPA No. 935 of 2003 has been filed by the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereafter referred to as the Board) and its officers against the part of the order dated 27.6.2003 whereby the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ application being CWJC No. 3310 of 2003 filed by the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 Man Bahadur for payment of retiral dues has also directed the appellant-Board to refund Rs. 14,289/- which has been recovered from the retiral dues of the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 on account of excess payment due to wrong fixation of pay.

5. LPA No. 955 of 2003 has been filed by the appellant-Board against the part of the order dated 25.6.2003 passed in CWJC No. 3282 of 2003




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top