Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 153 (JHR)

Saket Kumar Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2004-02-11

TAPEN SEN

body2004
ORDER Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. At the outset the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by an order dated 28.09.1991 (Annexure-20), a punishment was inflicted upon the petitioner in the following terms : (A) For the unauthorized absence for the period 24.04-1981 to 20.01.1983, the same would be treated to be unauthorized and following the principle of no work no pay, he would not be paid any salary or allowances. (B) The order of suspension shall be treated to be a punishment for the period 1981-82; and (C) For this period of suspension, he would not be entitled to any payment save and except subsistence allowance. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, upon perusal of the aforesaid order it is evident that the period for which the petitioner was punished was 24.04.1981 to 20.01.1983 but instead thereof, the respondent have not given any increment or promotion for the other periods. 4. From the pleadings made in the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner was suspended on 21.01.1983 whereafter the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court being CWJC No. 7170 of 1990 and by order dated 18.12.1990 the High Court passed the following order which inter alia, reads as follows :-- "The Government cannot be allowed to keep its employee in tenterhook for unlimited duration. If the petitioner was guilty of any charge it was incumbent for the State Government to start the departmental proceeding without delay and pass appropriate final order. In view of the fact that the matter is pending since 1983 on the allegation that the petitioner absented himself from April, 1981 we direct the disciplinary authority to pass appropriate order with regard to the payment of the balance amount of the salary to the petitioner during the period he was under suspension by February, 1991." 5. Upon perusal of Annexure-22, it is evident that the period between 16.06.1995 to 08.12.1998 has been regularized but according to the learned counsel for the petitioner this period has been treated to be a period without any pay and the respondents have treated the same to be an extra ordinary leave. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel relies upon a letter dated 03.10.2002 as contained in Annexure-24. 6. Let it be recorded that the petitioner has prayed, for quashing of the order dated 28.09.1991. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel relies upon a letter dated 03.10.2002 as contained in Annexure-24. 6. Let it be recorded that the petitioner has prayed, for quashing of the order dated 28.09.1991. However, this Court is not inclined to reopen this matter after so many years. When confronted with the aforementioned delay in relation to the order dated 28.09.1991, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined the writ petition vis-a-vis the order dated 03.10.2002 (Annexure-24) by which the period between 16.06.1995 to 08.12.1998 was treated to be a period of extra ordinary leave and without any pay. Consequently, the learned counsel prayed that the respondents should be directed that they should give the petitioner time bound promotion and increments. 7. Taking into consideration the aforementioned prayer made in Court during the course of arguments, this Court only considers it apt and appropriate to give opportunity to the petitioner to file a representation before the respondent No. 2. Upon receipt of such representation, the respondent No. 2 shall pass an order in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of receipt thereof along with a copy of this order. Let it however be recorded that this Court has not interfered with the order dated 28.09.1991 (Annexure-20) on grounds of delay. The representation will therefore be considered in accordance with law only in relation to the period which is not the period indicated in that order provided of course, the petitioner is eligible on all counts. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed off.