Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 533 (PAT)

Satish Kumar v. State of Bihar

2006-06-26

NARAYAN ROY

body2006
ORDER : 1. Heard counsel for the parties and considered the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. 2. It appears that pursuant to the ORDER :passed by this Court in CWJC No. 4834 of 1996 as contained in annexure 1, the petitioner and others were re-employed. 3. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, however, would be entitled for salary for the period he waited for posting with effect from 10.8.2000 to 27.5.2001 and also to get his arrears of salary with effect from July 1995 to November 1995. 4. From the ORDER :passed by this Court, as contained in annexure 1, it appears that the ORDER :of termination of services of the petitioner and others was quashed. However, it was clarified in the following terms:– "9. Coming to the question of consequential relief as the Department terminated the petitioners' services on the basis of and pursuant to the de-recommendation by the Commission and not on its own. I do not think it would be proper to saddle the Government with the burden of salary for the intervening period. As a matter of fact, in the case of Ratnesh Kumar (supra) whose services too had been terminated by the same ORDER :, has been denied salary for the intervening period vide ORDER :dated 24.2.1997 in CWJC No. 5194 of 1986. The petitioners however would be entitled to continuity of seniority as if the impugned ORDER :dated 18.11.1995 had never been passed at all." 5. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that pursuant to direction of this Court dated 10.8.2000, the petitioner was put back in services with effect from 27.5.2001 and therefore, he never waited for posting. 6. In view of the observation of this Court, the petitioner was put back in service and he is getting his due salary thereafter but he would not be entitled for the consequential benefits. 7. So far payment of salary with effect from July 1995 to November 1995 is concerned, it appears that the petitioner was terminated with effect from 18.11.1995 and in case, his salary was due prior to that, it may be admissible in accordance with law, for which the petitioner may represent before the authorities concerned, which would be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. 8. With the direction/observation aforesaid, this application is disposed of.