Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 408 (PAT)

Daroga Singh v. State Of Bihar

2006-05-03

NARAYAN ROY

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents Universities and College to make payment of his salary, which is not being paid to him after June 1992. 3. According to the case of the petitioner, he is said to have been appointed on daily wages in Maharshi Vishwamitra College, Buxar, with effect from 7.5.1980 alongwith some other persons. Subsequently, he was regularized on Class IV post by order of the Magadh University and appointment letter was issued to the petitioner, as contained in annexure 1 dated 29.4.1982. The petitioner thereafter was paid his salary etc. by the College in question, which used to be deposited in the Bank account. However, after June 1992 his salary was withheld for the reasons best known to the College in question and in the meantime, the college in question came within the jurisdiction of Veer Kunwar Singh University with effect from November, 1992. Request letters thereafter were sent from the college in question to the University to release sufficient funds for payment of salary to the petitioner and other employees. But necessary payment of salary could not be made to him. The petitioner thereafter represented before the authorities still then his grievances were not redressed. 4. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that by virtue of the order, as contained in annexure 1 dated 29.4.1982 the petitioner was appointed on Class IV post as Orderly Peon against a sanctioned post and he continued to work as Orderly Peon throughout and his salary was also paid up to June 1992, but without any rhyme or reason the same was withheld after June 1992 till date. It is further contended that appointment of the petitioner was made on regular basis by virtue of the order of the University against the sanctioned post, which necessarily would mean that his appointment was either approved under the provisions of Sections 10(2) and 35 of the Bihar State Universities Act (hereinafter to be referred to as "Act") or on the basis of Staffing Pattern, and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled for his salary throughout. It is also contended by the counsel for the petitioner that no proceeding, whatsoever, was initiated against the petitioner leading to stoppage of salary nor his services were ever terminated. 5. Necessary affidavits have been exchanged in between the parties. It is also contended by the counsel for the petitioner that no proceeding, whatsoever, was initiated against the petitioner leading to stoppage of salary nor his services were ever terminated. 5. Necessary affidavits have been exchanged in between the parties. Separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Universities and also on behalf of the college in question disputing the claim of the petitioner. 6. According to the affidavits filed on behalf of the Universities and the college in question, the petitioner was engaged on daily wages and till June 1992 he received his wages and thereafter he never worked in the college in question, and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for payment of his salary etc. after June 1992. 7. It also appears to be the case of the respondents that though the petitioner is said to have been appointed as Class IV employee, his appointment was never approved in terms of the provisions of the Act by the State Government and the petitioner has not produced any chit of paper to show that either he was appointed on any Staffing Pattern or after due approval of the State Government on Class IV post. 8. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective Universities and the college in question submitted that there is no record in the offices to show that the petitioner after June 1992 worked in the college in question nor he signed any acquittance roll showing his presence in the college in question. 9. From the affidavits filed on behalf of the Universities, it appears that the petitioner was engaged on daily wages basis in the college in question from November 1979 and thereafter the University prepared a panel of Class IV employee vide its letter no VC/Res/259 dated 26.4.1982 for appointment on regular basis. However, follow up action on the basis of the panel was stayed by the University on account of disputes and the petitioner continued to work on daily wages basis, whereas other persons appointed in 1982 were retrenched. It further appears from the affidavit of the University that the petitioner did not render his services after June 1992 in the college in question, and, therefore, he is not entitled for any remuneration. 10. It further appears from the affidavit of the University that the petitioner did not render his services after June 1992 in the college in question, and, therefore, he is not entitled for any remuneration. 10. This Court in course of hearing of the writ application had directed the Registrars of the Magadh University and Veer Kunwar Singh University to sit together and to take a decision as to the continuance of the petitioner in services either on daily wages or on regular basis, as claimed by him, after June 1992. The Registrars of the respective Universities, however, could not come to a conclusion that the petitioner continued in services after June 1992 and to that effect necessary affidavit was also filed in this case. 11. From the materials on record and the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner is heavily relying upon annexure 1, which is said to be the appointment letter, issued to the petitioner by the Principal of the college in question dated 29.4.1982. This letter, however, indicates that the petitioner was appointed on Class IV post against the sanctioned vacancy. However, annexure 1 does not appear to be in consonance with annexure A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Veer Kunwar Singh University. Annexure A appears to be a letter written by the Deputy Registrar of the Magadh University addressed to the Principal of the college in question, wherein name of the petitioner has been shown as grade IV employee, but nowhere it is mentioned that the persons shown in the grade of peons were appointed against sanctioned vacant post. On the basis of this letter, annexure 1 appears to have been issued wrongly describing the petitioner as an appointee against the sanctioned post. Subsequent affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, therefore, have termed the annexure 1 as forged one. The letter, as contained in annexure A, therefore, does not indicate that the petitioner and others were appointed on regular basis against the sanctioned post. Obviously, therefore, it appears that the petitioner continued to work on daily wages. 12. Any appointment made by the college or the University is subject to approval under the Act. The letter, as contained in annexure A, therefore, does not indicate that the petitioner and others were appointed on regular basis against the sanctioned post. Obviously, therefore, it appears that the petitioner continued to work on daily wages. 12. Any appointment made by the college or the University is subject to approval under the Act. The engagement of the petitioner does not even appear to be on Staffing Pattern duly approved by the State Government, which necessarily means that it has no sanction of law, as required under the Act. 13. So far the question of entitlement of the wages/salary of the petitioner after June 1992 is concerned, no conclusive document has been brought on record showing his continuance in the college in question throughout after June 1992 and since appointment of the petitioner on regular basis is in dispute, no question arises for initiation of a departmental proceeding against him for his alleged absence from duty. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be allowed to raise this question in support of his claim. 14. The claim of the petitioner, thus, appears to be much in dispute, and, therefore, he is not entitled to get any relief in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution. 15. In the result, this application is dismissed. 16. No order as to costs.