Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 628 (PAT)

S. D. N. Singh v. State Of Bihar

2003-06-27

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2003
Judgment 1. This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 4.12.2000 (Annexure-1) whereby the petitioners have been communicated that they shall not be entitled for salary for the unutilised period of earned leave. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present application are that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were appointed as the Chairman and Member of the Vidalaya Seva Board. Petitioner no. 1 worked in the said capacity from 4.4.1991 to 3.4.1997 and petitioner no. 2 from 16.2.1991 to 15.2.1997. It is their grievance that they have not been paid the salary in lieu of unutilised earned leave. 3. Petitioners earlier filed C.W.J.C. No. 6392 of 1998 (Dr. S.D.N. Singh & anr. V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors.) for the said relief. This court by order dated 19.3.1999 (Annexure-6) disposed of the writ application with a direction to dispose of the representation of the petitioners by a reasoned order within a period of three months. 4. It seems that the representation of the petitioners were not disposed of within the time stipulated. Ultimately, they filed application for initiating contempt proceeding against the respondents. Said application was registered as M.J.C. No. 608 of 2002 (Dr. S.D.N. Singh & anr. V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors.). When the aforesaid application was taken up on 5.10.2001, the respondents produced the decision taken in regard to the claim of the petitioners and ultimately, contempt proceeding was dropped and the petitioners were given liberty to assail the said order in accordance with law. Accordingly, petitioners have preferred this application for quashing the impugned order. 5. Mr. Awadheshwar Prasad, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled for payment of salary for the unutilised period of earned leave. In this connection, he has drawn my attention to the letter as contained in Annexure-5 addressed to the Accountant General. He submits that the aforesaid communication provides for earned leave for the Chairman and the Member of the College Service Commission and as such, petitioners are entitled for grant of salary for untilised period of earned leave. 6. Mrs. Pallavi Mishra, JC to G.R VIII appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Durgesh Nandan appearing on behalf of respondent no. 6. Mrs. Pallavi Mishra, JC to G.R VIII appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Durgesh Nandan appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3 submit that the petitioners are not entitled for grant of salary for unutilised period of earned leave. 7. Having appreciated the rival submissions, I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Prasad. Section 10 of the Bihar Non-Govt. Secondary School (Taking over of Management and Control) Act, inter-alia provides for establishment of Vidyalaya Seva Board. Section 10(5) thereof fixes the pay of the Chairman and the Member of the Board and further provides that other terms and conditions of service shall be laid down by the State Government. The communication (Annexure-5) referred to above provides for grant of earned leave but it nowhere provides that the salary in lieu of unutilised period of earned leave is to be given to the Chairman and the Member of the Board. Nothing has been placed on record to show that petitioners are entitled for salary for unutilised period of earned leave. 8. It is trite that payment of salary in lieu of earned leave is a condition of service. Nothing has been brought to my notice to show that the petitioners are entitled for the same by virtue of any such condition. In the absence thereof, prayer of the petitioners for payment of salary for unutilised period of earned leave is absolutely misconceived. In fact, while rejecting the representation of the petitioners, resopondents had found that no such condition exist. 9. In the result, I do not find any merit in this writ application and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.