Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 910 (PAT)

Satya Narayan Singh v. State of Bihar

2002-08-20

NARAYAN ROY

body2002
ORDER Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jawailardhari Singh, learned G.P. 1 for the State. 2. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of this writ application in defiance of this court's order dated 4.7.2002 whereby and where under operation of the order of transfer as contained in Annexure 14 was stayed, the petitioner has been relieved by the Civil Surgeon, Jamui vide order dated 18 to the supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the respondents are liable to be proceeded court's order dated 4.7.2002. 3. In view of the statement made in the supplementary affidavit and particularly with reference to Annexure 18, learned GPI stated that the petitioner has not been relieved and he prayed for some time so that an affidavit may be filed on behalf of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary of the department. The case, accordingly, was deferred for today. An affidavit has been filed today on behalf of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna and a categorical statement has been made in paragraph 3 of the affidavit stating therein that the petitioner has been allowed to stay and he has not been relieved. In this connection, it would be pertinent to quote the statement made in paragraph 3 of the affidavit: "That it is further stated that para 6 of the notification says that the large part of the State is affected by the floods every year, therefore, there was a general direction to all the transferred medical officers to join the new place of posting by 10th of July, 2002. The direction also included that on 9th July, 2002 every transferred medical officers would stand relieved and with effect from 10th July, 2002 he will not get salary from the present post. But since in this case the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to stay the operation of the order which was communicated to the Civil Surgeon on 6.7.2002, the petitioner has been allowed to stay on and he has not been relieved." 4. From Annexure 18 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner it would appear that in the letter addressed to the petitioner he has been shown as relieved doctor. 5. From Annexure 18 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner it would appear that in the letter addressed to the petitioner he has been shown as relieved doctor. 5. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed by the Secretary, it is categorically stated that since large part of the State was affected by flood, there was general direction to all the transferred medical officers to join at their place of posting by 10th of July 2002. The direction also included that on 9th July, 2002 every transferred medical officer would stand relieved w.e.f. 10th July, 2002 but at the same time it is also stated in the same paragraph that since the operation of the order of transfer of the petitioner was stayed by this Court, the petitioner has been allowed to stay and has not been relieved. In view of the statement made in paragraph 3 of the affidavit the petitioner would be deemed to be at his previous station as the medical officer irrespective of the facts shown in Annexure 18 of the supplementary affidavit. 6. Besides this question, it appears that the basic grievance of the petitioner has not yet been redressed to the extent that arrears of salary claimed by the petitioner w.e.f. September, 2001 till date has not been paid to him and he has been asked to join the transferred post. Learned G.P. 1 with reference to the statements made in the counter affidavit and also the supplementary counter affidavit, submitted that since there is no allotment under this head, the arrears of salary was not paid to the petitioner and no sooner he will join the transferred post, he will get the entire arrears of salary. It is not in dispute that the petitioner since September, 2001 till date has not been paid his salary. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a Bench of this Court, faced with the similar situation, passed a detail order in C.W.J.C. No. 8824 of 1992 directing the authorities to pay the arrears of salary before he is transferred. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner since September, 2001 till date has not been paid his salary. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a Bench of this Court, faced with the similar situation, passed a detail order in C.W.J.C. No. 8824 of 1992 directing the authorities to pay the arrears of salary before he is transferred. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the petitioner cannot be asked to move to the transferred post unless his arrears of salary almost for eleven months is paid to him In this view of the matter the order impugned as contained in Annexure 14 so far the petitioner is concerned, shall not be given effect to till arrears of salary as claimed by the petitioner is paid. It is further made clear that no sooner the necessary payment is made to the petitioner, the petitioner will joint the transferred post. With this direction/observation, this application is disposed of.