Advocates:
['PRADEEP KUMAR DEOMANI', '', 'SAMIR KUMAR LALL', 'SAURAV ARUN', '', 'RAJAN RAJ', 'ROHIT', 'AMRESH KUMAR', 'S SHRIVASTAVA', 'MANOJ KR', 'MANOJ KUMAR']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(S) No. 2049 of 2011

--------

1.

Amar Narain Singh

2.

Chandra Bhushan Kumar Sinha

3.

Prem Kumar Gupta

..… Petitioners

Versus

1.

The Jharkhand State Electricity Board (JSEB) through the

Chairman, JSEB, Ranchi

2.

The Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi

3.

The Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission

(JSERC) through the Chairman, JSERC, Ranchi

4.

The

Secretary,

Jharkhand

State

Electricity

Regulatory

Commission, Ranchi

….. Respondents

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioners

:

Mr. Pradeep Deomuni, Advocate

For the Respondents

:

Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate

Mr. Sudarshan Srivastav, Advocate

---------

06/21.12.2021

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

The instant writ application has been preferred by

the petitioners praying for a direction upon the respondent

authorities to pay Honorarium equal to the last pay drawn

minus

pension

since

the

respective

dates

of

their

reappointment on the posts of the members of Vidyut

Upbhokta Shikayat Niwaran Forum (Electricity Consumer

Grievance Redressal Forum), Jharkhand State Electricity

Board, Ranchi

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

Respondent No.3 and 4 have repeatedly made their

recommendation to the licensee respondent Board to the

effect that the petitioners are entitled to get honorarium equal

to the last pay drawn minus pension since the respective

dates of their reappointment but no heed was paid by the

respondent J.S.E.B.

He further submits that former Chairman of

J.S.E.B. has also ordered for payment of Honorarium to the

petitioners equal to the last pay drawn minus pension since

the respective dates of their reappointment with approval of

the commission; however, respondent Board is flouting its

own order.

-2-

Learned counsel for the petitioners further draws

attention of this court to the averments wherein it has been

stated that similarly situated persons in the other licensee

organization are getting the same benefit as claimed by the

petitioners in the instant writ application, but, in spite of

filing of several representations, respondent J.S.E.B. is sitting

tight on the matter

4.

Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the

respondent J.S.E.B. though opposed the prayer made in the

instant writ application; however, he fairly submits that the

petitioners may be directed to file fresh representation/s

before the concerned respondent, which will be decided in

accordance with law, applicable rules and regulations of the

respondent Board.

5.

Mr.

Sudarshan

Srivastav,

learned

counsel

appearing for Respondent No. 3 and 4 fairly submits that the

cases of the petitioners were duly recommended by the

authority vide Annexure 3 series to the main writ application.

6.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,

interest of justice would be sufficed by directing the

petitioners to file fresh individual representation before the

Respondent No.1 along with all relevant documents including

the recommendations made before the respondent JUVNL.

The moment the representation/s will be received

by the Respondent No.1; the matter will be enquired into and

the case of the petitioners will be considered in accordance

with law and in view of the aforesaid recommendations made

by the regulatory committee (Annexure 3 series to the writ

application) and notifications issued by the regulatory

Committee.

It goes without saying that if the order will be

passed in favour of these petitioners; necessary monetary

benefits will be extended to the petitioners expeditiously.

-3-

Since the matter is very old, the entire exercise

shall be completed within a period of four mont