Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 508 (PAT)

Baidya Nath Jha v. State of Bihar

2000-03-30

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

body2000
JUDGMENT SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.- This writ application has been filed for a direction to the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Darbhanga (Respondent no. 6) to make payment of salaries, allowances and other emoluments along with interest to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1982 as admissible to the post of Dalpaties in the State of Bihar. 2. Petitioner claims to be duly appointed Dalpati since the year 1961 and according to him he has continuously worked for all these years but was arbitrarily not paid any allowance etc. which became admissible to Dalpaties with effect from 1.1.1982. According to the petitioner in 1982 a criminal case was instituted against him for having submitted a false and forged educational certificate. Petitioner was later on discharged from that case on 4.6.1986. Petitioner has annexed certificates of Mukhia and Up-Mukhia granted in the year 1989 and 1991 in the year 1991 to show that he was working as Dalpati and a letter of the Deputy Director, Panchayati Raj, Darbhanga has been annexed as annexure 5 to show that by said letter dated 11.2.91 the Mukhia of the Panchayat who was requested to furnish particulars relating to claim of the petitioner. 3. Through a counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 6 the claim of the petitioner has been totally denied mainly on the ground that petitioner was removed from post of Dalpati by a resolution of the competent Executive Committee dated 30.11.1973 and in place of the petitioner another person, Kasturi Mandal was appointed as Dalpati vide resolution dated 31.12.73 and both these resolutions appeared to have been communicated to the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Darbhanga a vide memo no. 330 dated 22.3.1974 which is part of annexure-B to the counter affidavit. On behalf of the respondents it has further been alleged that the said Kasturi Mandal a continued as Dalpati of concerned Panchayat till the Panchayat was bifurcated in the year s 1978 and thereafter the Executive Committee by a resolution dated 22.2.1979 as contained in annexure-D decided to reappoint the petitioner to the post of Dalpati of Gram Panchayat Baghra Sirua because petitioner as was a resident of the Panchayat. Kasturi Mandal who has suceeded the petitioner as Dalpati was continued in the other Panchayat at Dhanauli because he was a resident of that Panchayat. Kasturi Mandal who has suceeded the petitioner as Dalpati was continued in the other Panchayat at Dhanauli because he was a resident of that Panchayat. It is further case of the respondent that for appointment to the post of Dalpati educational qualification of Middle was necessary and petitioner submitted a if certificate which was allegedly forged and It false for which a criminal case was lodged against him. Although the criminal case ended in discharge but the respondent alleged that the petitioner's re-appointment pursuant to annexure-D was not approved by the competent authority, the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Darbhanga and therefore, petitioner is not entitled to payment of any allowance etc. According to the respondents such allowance became admissible after the year 1981 but they have not given the exact date. 4. On behalf of the petitioner it was submitted that the petitioner's alleged removal from the post of Dalpati by resolution contained in annexure-A was illegal and the same was never communicated to the hi petitioner. On this basis, un behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that the petitioner must we deemed to have continued as Dalpati and since he was never removed from the said post in accordance with law, hence he is entitled to the admissible allowance from the date it has been paid to other Dalpaties of the State of Bihar. 5. This court finds serious difficulty in accepting the aforesaid contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner on account of several seriously disputed questions of fact. According to the petitioner the order of removal passed on 30.11.1973 was illegal and never communicated to him whereas the claim of the respondent is that not only the petitioner was removed as per said resolution but one Kasturi Mandal was appointed in his place with due intimation to the appointing authority. The stand taken by the respondent is prima facie supported by the documents filed in the counter affidavit and it cannot be said that the dispute of fact raised by the respondents is a mere sham and that in fact no dispute exists. In the facts of the case, it is not possible for this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction to come to a definite finding of fact as to whether the resolution contained in annexure-B was communicated or given effect to or not. In the facts of the case, it is not possible for this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction to come to a definite finding of fact as to whether the resolution contained in annexure-B was communicated or given effect to or not. However, prima facie the stand of the respondents appear to be more probable. 6. The other difficulty in allowing the claim of the petitioner in a writ application is on account of the fact that petitioner in his original writ application gave no clear picture of dispute involved in this case and the fact that another person had worked as Dalpati atleast between the years 1973-78 was also not mentioned in the writ application. Such conduct on the part of the petitioner in my view, does not permit this court to give any relief to the petitioner under writ jurisdiction. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly rejected. In the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.