Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 141 (PAT)

Shyamdeo Prasad Verma v. State Of Bihar

2004-02-04

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties and considered the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. 2. This writ application is directed against the order dated 10.2.2003 issued vide memo no. 55 as contained in Annexure whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioners for their wages has been rejected. 3. According to the case of the petitioners, they were engaged as Choukidars/ Pump operators against a permanent scheme in the Minor Irrigation Department and thereafter wages were paid to them but for the period from 1997 to 2000 their wages have not been paid though they worked under the respondents on daily wages basis. For their grievances the petitioners came to this court and this Court vide orders as contained in Annexure 2 series and Annexure 3 issued certain directions to the authorities to consider their cases for payment of wages. Pursuant to the direction of this court, Secretary of the department vide order contained in Annexure 4 dated 8.11.2001 acknowledged the claims of the petitioners and directed for payment of their wages accordingly. Since wages as per direction as contained in Annexure 4 were not paid to the petitioners, they came to this court in contempt and after filing of the same, the Secretary of the department referred the matter to the Liability Committee to examine again the claims of the petitioners and Liability Committee vide its report as contained in Annexure 5 acknowledged the claims of the petitioners. The Secretary of the department now on the basis of the report of the Liability Committee has issued the order impugned as contained in Annexure 1 negating their claims. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that once the Secretary of the Department acknowledged the claims of the petitioners and had directed for the payment of their wages for the period they had actually worked, there could have been no reason for it to get the matter again examined by the Liability Committee and the claims of the petitioners were acknowledged, admissible wages for the period the petitioners had worked could have been paid to them. But surprisingly enough, their claims have been negated by Annexure 1. 5. But surprisingly enough, their claims have been negated by Annexure 1. 5. From Annexure 5, the report of the Liability Committee, it appears that due enquiry was held to find out as to for what period the petitioners worked on daily wages and the members of the Liability Committee being satisfied that the petitioners had worked for certain periods on daily wages, submitted its report to the Secretary of the department. It appears that a full fledged enquiry was held by the Liability Committee and the petitioners were found to have worked under the respondents on daily wages. The report of the Liability Committee could have been made the basis for payment of admissible wages to the petitioners and the Secretary of the department thus could have accepted the same and the necessary payments could have been made to the petitioners. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the order impugned as contained in the Annexure 1 must be held to be unreasonable, arbitrary and wholly without jurisdiction. 7. In the result, this application is allowed. Order impugned as contained in Annexure 1 is set aside and the Secretary of the Department, respondent no. 2 is directed to act upon the report of the Liability Committee and make necessary payment of wages to the petitioners for the period they have actually worked. Necessary order, however, must be passed by the Secretary of the department and necessary payment of wages must be made to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date.of receipt/production of a copy of this order.