Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1020 (PAT)

Krishna Prasad Sinha v. State Of Bihar

2002-09-19

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2002
Judgment 1. In this writ application prayer of the petitioner is to direct the respondents to make payment of arrears of salary from July, 2000 to February, 2001 of July, 2001 and the current salary. 2. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the salary of the petitioner for the period July, 2001 to February, 2002 has been paid. It has been further stated that payment of the salary to the petitioner from July, 2001 to February, 2001 is under consideration of the authorities and a fresh proposal has been sent vide letter dated 2.5.2002. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is entitled for payment of salary and he cannot be allowed to suffer on account of negligence or inaction on the part of the respondents. Junior Counsel to Govt. Pleader I, however, submits that matter is under consideration and all admissible dues of the petitioner shall be paid within a short period. 4. It is not the plea of the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled for payment of salary. Their plea only is that till date, they have not been able to take the decision and proposal has been sent only on 2.5.2002. It is not their case that decision has not been taken on account of consultation or concurrence of any out-side agency. 5. Having appreciated the rival submissions, I am of the opinion, that the defence of the respondents is a defence of inaction. This is on account of reason diagnosed in the editorial of India Today in its issue dated 10th of July, 2000. Same reads as follows : "The bureaucracy-self perpetuating Holihesian leviathen is not the symptom of Indias ills, it is the disease. Its very structure sabotages innovations condones lassitude and encourages the attitude that a government job is sinecure from the date you get it." 6. The Constitution maker in wildest of their dreams would not have thought that a citizen will have to come to this court for such a relief. 7. This is a fit case in which mandamus sought for is fit to be granted. The Constitution maker in wildest of their dreams would not have thought that a citizen will have to come to this court for such a relief. 7. This is a fit case in which mandamus sought for is fit to be granted. Let the respondents make payment of arrears of salary within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and proceed to fix responsibility of the person/persons responsible for non-payment of the salary to the petitioner and realise the amount which I am intending to award as cost. 8. In the result, the application is allowed. Respondents are directed to make payment of the arrears of salary within the aforesaid period and continue to pay the current salary in accordance with law. Petitioner shall be entitled for the cost of this litigation which is quantified at Rs. 500/-.