Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 665 (PAT)

Prem Kumar Pandit v. State Of Bihar

2005-08-01

NARAYAN ROY

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for direction upon the respondents to make payment of arrears with effect from 2.1.1999 till date. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner by virtue of order as contained in Annexure 1 issued vide memo no. 255 dated 26.6.1995 was appointed on the vacant sanctioned post of Orderly Peon in Nawab High School, Sheohar in the pay scale of Rs. 775-1025 by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. The petitioner thereafter was adjusted against the vacant sanctioned post of Orderly Peon in High School, Athari in the district of Sitamarhi where he continued in the services and was being paid his salary regularly. However, all of a sudden, his salary has been stopped with effect from 2.1.1999 till date. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division was the competent authority to appoint the petitioner and thus the petitioner was entitled to the salary althrough the period he actually worked. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the petitioner has obtained his appointment on the post of Orderly Peon on the basis of forged documents. The appointment of the petitioner, thus was doubted and his salary was withheld pending certain enquiries. In enquiry it was found that the petitioner was not appointed by the competent authority nor he attended the school regularly. The authorities thereafter suspecting it a case of forgery, lodged the First Information Report against the petitioner and other persons in the month of September, 2004 and on that account the salary of the petitioner has been withheld. 5. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel submits that Sri Bhola Ram, the then Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division had appointed the petitioner on the post of Orderly Peon by virtue of the order as contained in Annexure 1. When the matter was referred to him by the authorities to testify as to whether his signature was there in Annexure 1, aforesaid Bhola Ram testif CD vide Annexure 11 to the supplementary affidavit that his signature is there in Annexure 1 issued vide memo no. 255 dated 26.6.1995. When the matter was referred to him by the authorities to testify as to whether his signature was there in Annexure 1, aforesaid Bhola Ram testif CD vide Annexure 11 to the supplementary affidavit that his signature is there in Annexure 1 issued vide memo no. 255 dated 26.6.1995. It is also submitted by learned counsel that this writ application was filed in this court on 25.8.2004 and only after filing of this writ application the authorities filed first information report against the petitioner and others just to save their skin. 6. The fact that the petitioner obtained his appointment on the basis of forged documents does not find support from the letter of his appointment as contained in Annexure 1 vis a vis Annexure 11, the letter issued by the very Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division rather it appears that he was validly appointed against a sanctioned vacant post by the competent authority. It also appears from the materials on record that bill of the petitioner was prepared for payment of his due salary but the same was not given final shape at the behest of the Collector of the district as the matter was pending enquiry about the genuineness of appointment of the petitioner. Further it is manifest from the report of the District Education Officer, Sitamarhi as contained in Annexure 8 dated 28.6.2003 that the petitioner is continuing in his service and he has thus directed for payment of his salary with effect from 2.1.1999 till 30.9.2002 on the basis of the same bill which was prepared earlier but was not finally passed by the treasury. 7. From the averments made in the counter affidavit it appears that the matter was inquired into by some other source than the officials of the department and appointment of the petitioner thus was found to be ingenuine. 8. From the facts as enumerated above, it appears to me that the petitioner was appointed by Sri Bhola Ram, the then Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division by virtue of order as contained in Annexure 1 dated 26.6.1995 and this fact has also been testified by the subsequent letter dated 14.12.2004 as contained in Annexure 11. 9. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that till date the petitioner has neither been put under suspension nor he has been dismissed from service. 10. 9. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that till date the petitioner has neither been put under suspension nor he has been dismissed from service. 10. Salary of a Government servant cannot be withheld for indefinite period in absence of any departmental proceeding. Lodging of the first information report, however, will not suffice to withhold salary of he petitioner. In this connection, reference "nay be made to the case of Rampati Mishra and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors,, reported in 2001 (3) RL.J.R. 462 and to the case of Radha Kumari vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 2002(3) P.L.J.R. 794 . 11. For the reasons aforementioned therefore, it is held that the petitioner would be entitled for his salary for the period he has actually worked under the respondents. 12. In the result, this application is allowed. Respondent No. 4 the District Education Officer, Sitamarhi is directed to release the due salary of the petitioner with effect from 2.1.1999 till the date he has actually worked forthwith and not beyond a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 13. No costs.