Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 488 (JHR)

Uma Shankar Prasad Srivastava v. State Of Jharkhand

2004-05-06

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2004
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for direction to the respondents to release his arrears of salary for the months of February 2000, September 2000, October 2000, and also the arrears of salary from 1.4.1997 to 31.1.2000. The second prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the respondents to release non-practicing allowance to the petitioner from 19.6.2000 to March 2001. 3. In view of the letter issued by the Government of Jharkhand dated 24.6.2002, under the signature of the Special Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, the learned, counsel for the State very fairly submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the salary for the aforesaid period as stated in this writ application. 4. In that view of the. matter, the respondents are directed to release the salary of the petitioner for the aforesaid period, i.e. February 2000, September 2000 and October 2000 and the salary, from 1.4.1997. to 31.1.2000, with a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 5. So far the second prayer regarding non-practicing allowance is concerned it is stated by the respondents that the State of Bihar has issued a Notification on 15.5.2000 in which the Government has taken a decision that the Doctors, who will close their private practice shall be entitled for payment of non-practicing allowance and for which they have to register themselves with the Bihar Animal Husbandry Council by 31.5.2000 and their applications alongwith declaration must be sent to the office of the Accountant General through their Controlling Officer. It is further submitted that the petitioner himself got registered with Bihar Animal Husbandry Council on 19/6/2000 and, therefore, he does not come under the same purview for allowing the non-practicing allowance. I am not inclined to grant this relief to the petitioner as he has failed to make out for the same and, as such, the same is rejected. 6. With the above observations and directions this application is disposed of.