Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 186 (JHR)

Makhan Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2007-03-19

N.N.TIWARI

body2007
Order The petitioner confines his prayer only with regard to the payment of arrears of salary and adjustment of advance. 2. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for payment of arrears of his salary for the period from 3.8.98 to 31.7.2000 and from May 2005 to February 2006. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order whereby the petitioner is alleged to have temporarily embezzled an amount of Rs. 42,500/- though, the said amount was given to him as• an advance for executing some work, the same has not been adjusted till date. According to the petitioner, he was put under suspension from 3.8.98 to 31.7.2000 on the alleged charges, which could not be substantiated and the departmental proceeding ended in his favour. He was exonerated and his suspension was revoked by Memo No. 118 dated 31.7.2000 issued by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Palamau. By the same order, a direction was also given to pay the petitioner's salary of the suspension period. In spite of the said order, arrears of his salary has not been paid till date. It has been stated that though the petitioner was continuously working after revocation of his suspension, but his salary was again arbitrarily withheld for the period from May 2005 to February 2006. It has been stated that the respondents have also directed the petitioner to refund Rs. 42,500/- which according to the respondents was given to the petitioner as an advance for doing some work. It has been stated that the petitioner had never taken such advance and that he is not liable to refund the said amount. The petitioner had also filed representation before the respondents requesting them to make payment of the arrears of his salary for the said period and to pass an appropriate order as no such amount has been taken by him, but till date no order has been passed. The petitioner has neither been paid the arrears of his salary nor order has been passed for adjusting the alleged advance. 3. Learned J.C. to S.C.-II submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar is the competent authority to look into the petitioner's grievance and pass appropriate order. The petitioner should have filed representation regarding his said claim before the Deputy Commissioner, but in stead of pursuing the said remedy, he has filed this writ petition. 4. 3. Learned J.C. to S.C.-II submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar is the competent authority to look into the petitioner's grievance and pass appropriate order. The petitioner should have filed representation regarding his said claim before the Deputy Commissioner, but in stead of pursuing the said remedy, he has filed this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the representation filed by him is still pending before the Deputy Commissioner and he has not yet considered the same and has not passed any order. 5. Considering the said submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also the circumstances of this case, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. If the petitioner is found entitled to get the arrears of his salary claimed by him, the payment thereof must be made to the petitioner within a period of six weeks thereafter. The said authority shall also take final decision as to whether any advance was taken by the petitioner and if the Deputy Commissioner finds that the petitioner had taken any advance, he shall furnish necessary details including the date or the amount or the Scheme under which the said advance was paid, to the petitioner within the said period and the time within which the same be refunded/paid by the petitioner.