Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 520 (PAT)

Ratan Kumar Sharma v. State of Bihar

2006-06-23

body2006
ORDER 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned S.C. 21 for the State. 2. The petitioner has come to this Court with two fold grievance. Firstly he claims payment of full salary as Muharrir from 15.12.1982 to 10.8.1988 and secondly, he also seeks payment of difference of salary of Amin and Muharrir since 11.8.1988 to 31.12.1996. 3. The petitioner's case is that his service as Muharrir alongwith that of several other persons was terminated with effect from 15.12.1982. Aggrieved with the same the petitioner and others approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 1631 of 1984 which was heard alongwith C.W.J.C. No. 2296 of 1985 and was allowed by order dated 25.8.1995 passed by a Division Bench of this Court. Against the same the State filed a Civil Review No. 231/95 which was also dismissed by order dated 29.11.1996. The petitioners of those cases were thereafter directed to be reinstated but salary for the period during which they were cut of service was not given to them. Eight of such persons, but not the present petitioner filed CWJC No. 7320 of 1998: Alakh Niranjan Prasad & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. and vide order dated 27.10.1999 this Court held that the petitioners are entitled for full salary for intervening period during which they were forced to remain out of service i.e. from 1.12.1982 to 22.11.96. 4. The case of the petitioner is that while the State has made the payment of salary to those persons who had approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7320 of 1998, the same is being denied to him. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State respondent in which the stand taken is that since the petitioner had not actually worked during the period 15.12.1982 to 10.8.1988. Therefore, on the principle of no work no pay the petitioner is not entitled to any salary for said period. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State respondent in which the stand taken is that since the petitioner had not actually worked during the period 15.12.1982 to 10.8.1988. Therefore, on the principle of no work no pay the petitioner is not entitled to any salary for said period. The said stand of the State appears to be uncalled for and on the same fact and identical pleas other persons had approached this Court and by order dated 25.8.95 their case was allowed and that Judgment had acquired finality and since the State had not challenged the same by filing any review or appeal and having accepted the said decision, this Court directs the authorities of the State to grant the same benefits to the present petitioner even if he has not approached this Court earlier. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts the respondents are directed to ensure that the petitioner is paid his salary for the period during which he was kept out of service within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. With respect to the other claim of the petitioner regarding difference of salary the petitioner claims that from 11.8.1988 he had been re-engaged as Amin and continued to function as such till 31.12.1996, whereafter he had been reinstated as Muharrir. In this regard the stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit is that there is no difference in the pay scale of Amin and Muharrir and the same pay scale has continued during the different difference pay revisions and thus, the petitioner was not paid any lesser amount during which he functioned as Amin. For the said reason he would not be entitled to any difference of pay. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his reply to the counter affidavit has not challenged this aspect of the matter. Hence, the claim of the petitioner for difference of salary for the period aforesaid is rejected. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is partly allowed with the aforesaid directions.