Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8960 (JHR)

RAMCHANDRA PRASAD v. THE JHARKHAND BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

WPC/1823/2025 · 2025-04-16

Deepak Roshan

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

( 2025:JHHC:11458 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(S). No. 1823 of 2025 ---- Ramchandra Prasad, aged about 73 years, son of Late Sukhdeo Sah, Resident of Block Chowk, PO &PS-Kamdara, District-Gumla, Jharkhand-835227 .......Petitioner Versus 1. The Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through its Managing Director, Engineering Building, H.E.C, Dhurwa, PO &PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand 2. The Deputy General Manager, JBVNL, Bijli Board Office, Kusai Colony, PO- Hinoo, PS-Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand 3. The Electrical Executive Engineer, JBVNL, Gumla, PO&PS-Gumla, District- Gumla, Jharkhand .....Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Shilpi, JC to Manoj Kumar --- 02/ Dated: 16.04.2025 1. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon respondent authorities to pay the deducted amount of Rs. 50,000/- (towards Tool Plants), arrear of deducted house rent and also payment of remaining amount of Rs.37,000/- towards gratuity coupled with arrear of 10% interest. 2. The fact remains that the petitioner has retired in the year 2012. The grievance of the petitioner is that, in spite of several representations, his case has not been considered. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the claim of the petitioner is highly time barred. 4. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no relief can be granted to the petitioner being hopelessly time barred as the relief claimed by him pertains to the year 2012 and even prior to that period and he has raised his grievance for the first time before this Court in the year 2025. Even otherwise, apart from mere representations, no any document has been annexed by the petitioner in support of his claim with respect to deduction in order to demonstrate that there was any such illegal deductions. 5. Accordingly, this writ application stands dismissed. Abha/ (Deepak Roshan, J.)