Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 285 (PAT)

Pran Kumar Ray v. State Of Bihar

2005-03-11

NARAYAN ROY

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner and JC to GP-VII for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of directions upon the respondents to pay arrears of salary with 20 per cent interest with effect from 18.3.1988 to 6.4.1998. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner in a departmental proceeding was found guilty of misconduct and accordingly he was dismissed. His statutory appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter, he approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11784 of 1996 challenging the order of dismissal. This Court vide order as contained in annexure-4, allowed the said writ application and set aside the order of dismissal and after passing of the order by this Court the petitioner was reinstated and he joined as a Constable (Bihar Police) at Bettiah on 7.4.1998. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after reinstatement of the petitioner he was entitled for all back salary but till date the same has not been paid to him. Learned counsel further submitted that since this Court had set aside the order of dismissal and thereafter the petitioner was reinstated he would be entitled for the entire arrears of salary as this question is no more res integra in view of the judgment of this Court and the Apex Court. 4. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and in this view of the matter the statement made in paragraph 11 of the writ application that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11784 of 1996 the petitioner was reinstated should not be disbelieved. 5. It appears that this Court faced with simiiar circumstance in the case of Sudhir Kumar V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 408 of 2001) relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Manorma Verma (SMT) V/s. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 1994 Suppl. (3) Supreme Court Cases 671 and in the case of M/s Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. V/s. The Employees of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 408 of 2001) relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Manorma Verma (SMT) V/s. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 1994 Suppl. (3) Supreme Court Cases 671 and in the case of M/s Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. V/s. The Employees of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. AIR 1979 S.C. page 75 held that the writ petitioner would be entitled for his arrears of salary from the date of termination till the date of his reinstatement and accordingly necessary directions were issued to the respondents authorities to make payment of arrears, of salary with admissible allowance etc. In this connection, reference may also be made to the case of Union of India V/s Madhusudan Prasad, AIR 2004 Supreme Court page 977. In the case of Union of India vs. Madhusudan Prasad (supra) the Apex Court declined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court whereby and whereunder the respondent was held entitled to get salary for the period he was out of service and thus it was reiterated that the respondent would be entitled for his due salary for the period he was out of job. 6. The facts involved in this writ application are identical and thus it is squarely covered by the judgments as referred to above. 7. It is accordingly held that the petitioner it entitled to get his arrears of salary for the period he remained dismissed till the date of his reinstatement with all admissible allowances etc. 8. For the reasons aforementioned, this writ application is allowed. Respondents authorities are directed to pay the entire arrears of salary with admissible allowances to the petitioner from the date of his dismissal till the date of his reinstatement within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.