Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 225 (PAT)

Shatrughan Sharma v. State Of Bihar

2004-02-25

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner substantially prays for issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay his salary since January, 1999 till date and also to quash the order, as contained in Annexure 9, issued by respondent No. 2, whereby and whereunder transfer of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent No. 5 has been stayed. 3. According to the case of the petitioner it appears that the petitioner was working as Store Keeper at Jahanabad under respondent No. 3 Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Gaya and by virtue of the order, as contained in Annexure 3, he was transferred on the same post in place of respondent No. 5, who was transferred on the post of a Clerk in Public Health Engineering Department itself. Pursuant to the order of transfers, as contained in Annexure 3, the petitioner was relieved from Jehanabad on 9.7.1999, and on the next day, he joined as Store Keeper at Nawadah and on the pretext that respondent No. 5 had not handed over the charge, his salary was with-held. The petitioner brought, this fact to the notice of the Chief Engineer of the concerned Department and the Chief Engineer vide letters as contained in Annexures 10 and 11, directed respondent No. 5 to hand over charge at Nawadah forthwith. The letters, issued by the Chief Engineer, as contained in Annexures 10 and 11, were not given effect to and in the meantime, the communication as contained in Annexure 9, was issued by the same Chief Engineer on 30th March, 2000 staying the transfer of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent No. 5 and till date, no appropriate posting has been given to the petitioner after issuance of order, as contained in Annexure 9, nor his salary has been paid from January, 1999, till date. 4. A Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent State. However, no plausible expansion has been given as to under what circumstances salary of the petitioner has not been released with effect from January, 1999 till date and as to why an appropriate posting has not been given to the petitioner after issuance of Annexure 9. 5. A bald plea has been taken by learned counsel for the State that the petitioner initially was working under work Charged Establishment, and, therefore, his appointment and posting as Store Keeper on regular basis were not permissible. 5. A bald plea has been taken by learned counsel for the State that the petitioner initially was working under work Charged Establishment, and, therefore, his appointment and posting as Store Keeper on regular basis were not permissible. There is absolutely nothing in the counter affidavit to show that the order posting the petitioner as Store Keeper at Jahanabad and also at Nawadah has ever been cancelled nor he has been reverted back to work under work Charged Establishment. At the same time, there is nothing in the counter affidavit to show that the petitioner in not continuing in services till date. 6. From the facts, enumerated above, it appears to me that till date the petitioner is continuing in services, but without work and no posting, whatsoever, has been given to him after issuance of the order, as contained in Annexure 9, whereby and where under the earlier order of transfer, as contained in Annexure 3, was stayed. 7. The petitioner, in that view of the matter, would be entitled for salary with effect from 1.1.1999, till date with all consequential benefits. 8. This Court while directing the State counsel to file a counter affidavit vide order dated 26.07.2000, observed that during the pendency of this application, the admitted dues of the petitioner be paid. 9. It is submitted at the bar that till date even the permissible pay has not been released to the petitioner nor he has been given an appropriate posting. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent authorities are directed to give the petitioner an appropriate posting and pay his due salary from January, 1999 till date with all consequential benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also seeing the hardship of the petitioner, I direct for payment of cost of Rs. 5,000.00 (five thousand) to the petitioner within the some time, as indicated above. 11. With the direction/observation aforesaid, this application is disposed of.