ORDER : 1. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 40 dated 8.2.2006 issued by the Respondent No. 4 whereby and whereunder, it has been held that the petitioner is not entitled for payment of overtime work rendered by him beyond 150 hours in a year in view of the provisions contained in Factories Act 1948 as well as for a declaration that the Office Order No. 451 dated 19.1.1995 of Bihar State Electricity Board and Letter No. 28 dated 26.2.2002 of Jharkhand State Electricity Board as has been mentioned in Memo No. 437 dated 2.7.2005 is not in consonance with the provisions of the Factories Act 1948. 2. It has further been prayed for a direction upon the respondent to immediately and forthwith release the amount pertaining to overtime work rendered by the petitioner along with interest thereupon. 3. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Line Patrol Man on 10.6.1964 and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Assistant Operator. The petitioner retired as Assistant Controller on 31.1.1999 from Goelkera Grid Sub Section of Transmission Circle, Ranchi. The petitioner was engaged in overtime work in Goelkera Grid Sub Section and accordingly the petitioner had submitted bills pertaining to overtime work rendered by him for the period commencing March, 1994 till the date of his superannuation. A writ application was preferred by the petitioner since the bills submitted by the petitioner were not being considered by the concerned authorities and the said writ petition being CWJC No. 2965 of 2000 (R) was disposed of on 10.1.2001 directing the Electrical Executive Engineer to decide the representation, if any filed by the petitioner relating to payment of overtime amount. Since the order dated 10.1.2001 passed in CWJC No. 2965 of 2000 (R) was not complied with the petitioner was constrained to file a contempt application being MJC No. 295 of 2000 (R) and during the pendency of the contempt application the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 2,94,647.76/-vide Cheque No. 651993 dated 13.4.2002. The contempt proceeding was accordingly dropped. 2,94,647.76/-vide Cheque No. 651993 dated 13.4.2002. The contempt proceeding was accordingly dropped. However, since the amount claimed by him was not paid to the petitioner, the petitioner again moved this Court in WP (S) No. 3451 of 2002 claiming for payment of overtime bills alongwith interest for the various period indicated therein and the said writ petition being WP (S) No. 3451 of 2002 was disposed on 20.2.2003. The petitioner was given liberty to file representation before the Electrical Executive Engineer who was directed to consider and dispose of the same within a period of six weeks. Due to non-compliance of the order dated 20.2.2003 passed in WP (S) No. 3451 of 2002, Contempt Case (Civil) No. 281 of 2003 was preferred by the petitioner but during the pendency of the contempt application the Electrical Executive Engineer, Transmission Division, Chaibasa, (Respondent No. 4) passed an order as contained in Memo No. 437 dated 2.7.2005 by which it was decided that as per the provisions of the Factories Act 1948 and Office Order No. 451 dated 19.1.1995 issued by the Bihar State Electricity Board as also in view of Letter No. 28 dated 26.2.2002 issued by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board no claim can be entertained with respect to overtime allowance beyond 50 hours in a quarter and 150 hours in a year. The refusal by the respondent No. 4 to entertain the claim of the petitioner has resulted in filing of the instant writ application. 4. Heard Mr. Rohit Roy learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. O.P. Tiwary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 to 4 and Mr. Manoj Tandon learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5. 5. Mr. Rohit Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No. 4 had misinterpreted and misconstrued the provisions of the Factories Act 1948 while denying the claim of the petitioner for making payment of the rest amount of overtime allowance. It has been submitted that the concerned respondents do not dispute the fact that the petitioner was not engaged in overtime work but merely by taking recourse to the provisions of the Factories Act 1948 his claim has been denied. It has been submitted that the concerned respondents do not dispute the fact that the petitioner was not engaged in overtime work but merely by taking recourse to the provisions of the Factories Act 1948 his claim has been denied. It has also been submitted that the petitioner cannot be faulted or deprived from his legitimate claim as the overtime work he undertook was at the instance of his superiors and this fact has not been properly considered by the respondent No. 4 while rejecting the claim of the petitioner vide order as contained in Memo No. 40 dated 8.2.2006. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner has been paid overtime as per the order and provisions of the Factory Act 1948 as well as the Office Order of the Board. It has been submitted that the overtime bills which have been passed and sanctioned has already been made available to the petitioner and there is no other sanctioned bills pending in the office of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. It has further been submitted that the respondents-authorities cannot act beyond the purview of its circulars and the provisions of law enumerated in the Factories Act 1948 and no overtime above the overtime of 50 hours in a quarter and 150 hours in a year can be sanctioned and paid to an employee. In such circumstances, he submits that the order as contained in Memo No. 40 dated 8.2.2006 was in terms of the provisions of law and the guidelines/circulars of the respondent-Board and, therefore, issuance of the aforesaid letter by the respondent no. 4 was within the precincts of law. 7. The petitioner had earlier moved this Court on several occasions and ultimately an amount of Rs. 2,94,647.76/- vide cheque No. 651993 dated 13.4.2002 was paid to the petitioner. The petitioner claims an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- and odd as overtime allowance and the rest amount has been denied to the petitioner by taking recourse to the provisions of the Factories Act 1948 as well as the circulars of the Board. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner in course of his argument has referred to the judgment in the case of Nripendra Narayan Sinha vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi and Others, 2006 (3) JCR 70 (Jhr). 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner in course of his argument has referred to the judgment in the case of Nripendra Narayan Sinha vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi and Others, 2006 (3) JCR 70 (Jhr). The judgment under reference took into consideration the Office Order No. 451/EB dated 19.1.1995 which prohibited its Officers from taking overtime work from the office staffs beyond the particular hours. The Office Order No. 451/EB dated 19.1.1995 was ordered to be implemented subsequently by virtue of Office Order No. 81/EB dated 13.4.1999 wherein it was categorically stated that if any officer deviates from such instruction it will be at the risk and cause of the officers concerned and the amount involved in payment of such irregular overtime will be recovered from the pay of the erring officer and they will also be liable of disciplinary action. The judgment under reference further went on to hold that the petitioner is entitled for payment of the overtime wages as per the actual hours of overtime work taken from him, as quoted above and not disputed by the respondents, set aside the impugned order, contained in Memo No. 2673 dated 2nd December, 2004 to the extent the claim of the petitioner has been rejected, and remit the case to the respondents. 9. Similar is the fact of the present case as by taking the plea of limitations prescribed under Section 59 of the Factories Act 1948 the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Since the concerned respondents did not dispute the fact that the petitioner was engaged in overtime work the plea taken by the respondents denying the rightful claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted and hence the impugned letter as contained in Memo No. 40 dated 8.2.2006 is not sustainable and accordingly the same is, hereby, quashed. 10. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No. 4 who shall consider the claim of the petitioner without being hindered by either the guidelines/circulars mentioned hereinabove as also the provisions of Section 59 of the Factories Act 1948 and on consideration of the claim of the petitioner shall pass a reasoned order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is entitled to overtime allowance over and above what has been paid to him in pursuance of the earlier round of litigations the same shall be made available to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of passing of the reasoned order as indicated above. 11. This writ petition is disposed of. 12. I.A. pending, if any, also stands disposed of.