ORDER : Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to carry out necessary correction in Para 1 of the prayer portion, and the relief, as sought for in the concluding paragraphs of the writ application, as due to inadvertence the prayer has been made for payment of over time wages for the period commencing from April, 1994 to June, 2006, instead of April, 1994 to October, 2006 as mentioned in para 7 of the writ petition. 2. Permission accorded. Learned counsel shall carry out the necessary correction in course of day. 3. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved that he has been paid overtime wages @ 150 hours, per year only whereas overtime work was taken by the respondents for more than 150 hours per year as detailed in Para 7 of the present writ application as well as appended in Annexure-2 of the representation filed by the petitioner containing the details of the overtime work done by the petitioner from April, 1994 to October, 2006. It is argued that till date no decision has been taken by the respondent-Jharkhand State Electricity Board on the representation filed by the petitioner for payment of the overtime work done by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel while placing reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Nipendra Narayan Sinha v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, 2006 (3) JLJR 603 and Nand Kishore Sah v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board through its Chairman and others, 2016 (4) JCR 623 (Jhr) : 2016 (4) JLJR 164 , has contended that non-payment of the overtime work actually done by the petitioner is violative of the Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India. In view of the aforesaid decisions the petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction and order by way of prerogative writ commanding upon the respondents to pay the admissible outstanding amount to the petitioner. 5. Mr. Amitabh, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents-Jharkhand State Electricity Board, has submitted that admittedly the petitioner has been paid Rs. 44,156/- for the overtime work @ 150 hours per year. 5. Mr. Amitabh, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents-Jharkhand State Electricity Board, has submitted that admittedly the petitioner has been paid Rs. 44,156/- for the overtime work @ 150 hours per year. It is canvassed that in terms of Annexure-A, i.e., the Board's letter No. 162 dated 5.8.1993, no overtime dues can be paid to an employee for more than 150 hours in a year, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for payment of overtime work done by him beyond 150 hours in a year is misconceived and against the guidelines laid down in the letter issued by the Board. 6. Heard, the respondent-JSEB, has not disputed the narration and details of the overtime work done by the petitioner from April, 1994 to October, 2006, contained in Para 7 and Annexure-2 of the representation filed by the petitioner. Evidently the respondents have denied payment for overtime work done beyond 150 hours per year on the basis of the Board's letter, i.e., Annexure-A. It is not disputed that the petitioner had done the overtime work on the asking of the respondents and the respondents had taken overtime work from the petitioner beyond the permissible 150 hours per year. The issue regarding payment for the overtime work beyond 150 hours per year is no more res integra in view of the settled legal position as per the judgment rendered in Nipendra Narayan Sinha (supra) which has been followed in Nand Kishore Sah (supra). Therefore, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to pass appropriate order on the representation filed by the petitioner in view of the settled legal position as laid down in the aforementioned judgments. The respondents shall complete the procedure of verification of record and pass necessary order for payment of the overtime work done by the petitioner, within 12 weeks from the date of receipt or production of the copy of this order. 7. With the said direction, the petition is, hereby, disposed of. Petition disposed of.