Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 147 (PAT)

Kumar Atul v. State Of Bihar

2002-02-01

NARAYAN ROY

body2002
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. By this writ application, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a direction upon the respondents to pay salary and other consequential benefits due to them with effect from 27.3.1997 till date. 3. The petitioners claimed to have been appointed under the Unemployment Token Allowance Scheme of the State Government as clerks on sanctioned, approved and vacant posts with effect from 19.3.1997 and they joined their posts in the Head Office under the Directorate of Employment and Training, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Unemployment Token Allowance Scheme since was not found productive, it was decided by the State Government to adjust the employees of the Scheme and accordingly, services of the petitioners were adjusted against sanctioned vacant posts of Accounts Clerk in the Directorate of Social Security of the Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Government of Bihar, Patna and thereafter they continued in their services. However, petitioner no. 1 was transferred to Khagaria and was posted as Accounts Clerk in the District Social Security Cell under the District Magistrate, Khagaria and likewise, rest of the petitioners were also transferred to different places and at present, they are posted in the districts of Pakur, Sahebganj and Hazaribagh under the Social Security Cell and they are also continuing on their posts. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the petitioners are entitled for their due salary with effect from 27.3.1997 and till date. 5. Two sets of counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents- one on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 and another on behalf of respondent no. 4. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 under whom the petitioners are said to have continued in their services, precisely states that the petitioners are not entitled to any salary with effect from 27.3.1997 nor they are entitled to get any relief as they were never appointed under the Directorate of Social Security, Government of Bihar and appointment letters, as shown by the petitioners, were not issued by the Directorate of Social Security Cell and the appointment letters appear to be forged and fabricated and all such appointment letters have been cancelled by the administrative department vide letter no. 105 dated 24.1.2000 and letter no. 686 dated 13.11.2000 as contained in Annexures A and B, respectively, to the counter affidavit. 6. 105 dated 24.1.2000 and letter no. 686 dated 13.11.2000 as contained in Annexures A and B, respectively, to the counter affidavit. 6. Learned Standing Counsel No. 7 appearing on behalf of the State, with reference to the statements made in the counter affidavit, submitted that the petitioners have not been appointed by the Directorate of Social Security and the matter has now been referred to the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department for enquiry, Learned counsel further submitted that similar writ application bearing C.W.J.C. No. 7866 of 2001 has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 7.8.2001 as contained in Annexure-C to the counter affidavit and, therefore, this writ application is liable to be dismissed. 7. It appears that while disposing of the writ application bearing C.W.J.C. No. 7866 of 2001, this Court noticed that this Court in earlier writ application bearing C.W.J.C. No. 11766 of 1999 held that the scheme "Umemployment Token Allowance Scheme" which was periodically extended from time to time finally came to an end in 1996 when the scheme was discontinued and thus, held that it was not understandable how the petitioners were appointed on or about 19.3.1997. This Court further observed that the petitioners, taking advantage of the directions issued by this Court in the public interest litigation being C.W.J.C. Nos. 2560, 4164 and 4216 of 1996 whereby and whereunder a policy decision was taken by the State Government to absorb the employees of the Scheme in the other departments, obtained appointment letters from the Joint Director (Establishment) Labour, Employment and Training Department whose authority has been challenged in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State saying that he was not competent to make appointment. 8. In view of the materials, referred to above, brought on record and in view of the decision rendered by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7866 of 2001, the claim of the petitioners is very much disputed and, therefore, no relief can be granted to them. 9. In the result, this application is dismissed. No costs.