- (1.) THE petitioner preferred the writ petition on 23rd February, 2008, being aggrieved against the letter no. 42/06/2005 - R&R dated 5th December, 2007 (Annexure - 11) issued by the respondent no. 3, by which Ministry of Power had directed the petitioner (Jharkhand State Electricity Board) to reimburse Rs. 74.44 crore to successor Bihar State Electricity Board towards excess payment made by the Bihar State Electricity Board over the retiral benefits to the employees during the period 2001 -02 to 2004 -05. In the points of law, as a first point, in para 2(A), it has been alleged that issuance of letter dated 3rd November, 2006, was illegal, void and arbitrary. It will be worthwhile to mention here that Government of India took the decision dated 3rd November, 2006, which appears to be in pursuance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5338/2006, arising out of SLP (C) No. 8618/2006 (Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Ano. Vs. Akhileshwar Prasad & Ors.) and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above Civil Appeal No. 5338/2006, vide order dated 1st December, 2006, directed the parties to implement clauses (3) and (4) of the decision taken on 3rd November, 2006 and thereafter protected the rights of both the parties by observing "If any party is aggrieved by the said decision, they may resort to further proceedings in accordance in law". Now this I.A. No. 755/2012 has been submitted by the writ petitioner, seeking addition of relief for quashing of the order dated 3rd November, 2006, on the basis of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 1st December, 2006 referred above.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for Bihar State Electricity Board submitted that the order of the Central Government came on 3rd November, 2006, and it was in the knowledge to the writ petitioner since then and this fact was taken note of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order dated 1st December, 2006, in Civil Appeal No. 5338/2006 and thereafter the present writ petition was filed in the year 2008, wherein also the writ petitioner did not pray for quashing of the letter/decision dated 3rd November, 2006, which has been made binding by the order dated 1st December, 2006, because the Supreme Court observed that "Central Government shall ensure that the parties abide by its decision". It is also submitted that the decision of the Central Government dated 3rd November, 2006, is valid, legal and binding. Learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that even the Central Government thereafter in another representation observed that direction to make payment of Rs. 74 crore and odd, which is the subject -matter in the present writ petition, is only an interim measure and therefore, liabilities have not been decided finally and thus, instead of multiplying the proceedings, it would be appropriate that the writ petitioner may be permitted to seek relief of quashing the letter/order dated 3rd November, 2006, in this writ petition.
(3.) AFTER considering the argument of the parties and proceedings taken in the earlier round of litigation and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 1st December, 2006 and the order dated 3rd November, 2006 and further in view of the reason that writ petitioner has already in the writ petition pleaded that the letter/order dated 3rd November, 2006, is illegal, void and arbitrary, we deem it appropriate to allow I.A. No. 755/2012, permitting the writ petitioner to challenge the letter/order dated 3rd November, 2006, which right has been protected by the order of the Apex Court dated 1st December, 2006.;