Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 473 (PAT)

Lakhan Lal Sharma v. State Of Bihar

2005-05-03

NARAYAN ROY

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard counsel tor the parties. 2. The petitioner seeks direction upon the respondent District Magistrate, Saran to pay his due salary with effect from 1999 to August 2001. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on Class III post in the Collect-orate of Gopalganj in the year 1984 after following the procedures laid down under the Rules and he worked there for several years and thereafter by virtue of the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Saran Division, as contained in annexure 3 dated 1.7.1991 the petitioner was transferred to the Collectorate of Saran. The petitioner joined in the Collectorate of Saran and was getting his salary as usual. However, in the year 1999 on the basis of audit report dated 28.7.1999, his appointment was doubted and thereafter his salary was withheld with effect from August 1999. However, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court dated 1.8.2001 the authorities started paying salary to the petitioner with effect from September 2001 and till date he is getting his salary. 4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the salary of the petitioner for the month of August 1999 to August 2001 was withheld without any rhyme or reason and no proceeding, whatsoever, was initiated against him on the basis of audit report, as referred to above. It is also submitted that since the petitioner was validly appointed by the competent authority in the year 1984, he was entitled to get his salary and the authorities had no jurisdiction to withhold his salary for some time without initiation of a proceeding against him. 5. Learned counsel for the State with reference to the counter affidavit submitted that only reason for non-payment of salary was the audit report dated 28.7.1999. 6. It is admitted fact that the salary of the petitioner was withheld for the period August 1999 to August 2001 and no departmental proceeding, whatsoever, was initiated against the petitioner. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner is being paid his salary regularly since September 2001. 7. In the case at hand, no plausible explanation has been given by learned counsel for the State for withholding the salary of the petitioner for some time. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner is being paid his salary regularly since September 2001. 7. In the case at hand, no plausible explanation has been given by learned counsel for the State for withholding the salary of the petitioner for some time. Even assuming that the audit report was made available to the authority as far back as on 28.7.1999, but no action, whatsoever, was taken against the petitioner and his salary was withheld from August 1999. 8. Salary of a Government servant cannot be withheld for sufficiently a longer period in absence of a departmental proceeding. In this connection, reference may be made to the cases of Ram Pati Mishra and others vs. The State of Bihar and others [2001(3) Patna Law Journal Reports 462] and Radha Kumari vs. The State of Bihar and others [2002(3) Patna Law Journal Reports 794]. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons aforementioned, this application is allowed and respondent no. 3, District Magistrate, Chapra (Saran), is directed to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner with effect from August 1999 to August 2001 forthwith and not beyond a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. No order as to costs.