Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 815 (PAT)

Satish Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2007-04-20

J.N.BHATT, SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA

body2007
Judgment 1. With consent of the parties, this appeal is being heard for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2. In this Letters Patent Appeal the challenge is against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.6.2006 recorded in CWJC No. 3852 of 2005, whereby and whereunder it has been held that the original writ petitioner would not be entitled to consequential benefits to get the salary for the period 10.8.2000 to 27.5.2001. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court. 3. The appellant is the original writ petitioner, who came to be appointed on the post of Health Educator in 1994 by the respondents. The services of the appellant and others had been terminated on 18.11.1995 by the respondents, which was challenged earlier by other persons successfully and the Court granted the arrears of salary during which the Government could not or did not issue orders for posting. 4. Same is the case here. A person, who has been appointed and if no further progress in payment of salary is made, action can be taken. In the present case, the appellant was appointed as early as on 14.2.1994 and thereafter his services came to be terminated on 18.11.1995 by the respondent without any clear or cogent reason, which was quashed by this Court. The appellant, therefore, has to be appointed with effect from the date he was selected and appointed by the respondent-authorities. The appellant and others are in service, but the appellant has not been paid the salary for the aforesaid period of almost ten months. There is no any legitimate reason why the appellant is deprived of the salary of that period when similarly situated persons have already been paid that too for the reasons that there is no fault on the part of the employees but fault was on the part of the respondent-authorities in not issuing the orders after the quashment of the termination order. 5. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the impugned order is vulnerable and it has to be quashed and set aside as it was done in the four, out of five cases, and the judgment rendered earlier is applicable to the facts of the present case. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. 5. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the impugned order is vulnerable and it has to be quashed and set aside as it was done in the four, out of five cases, and the judgment rendered earlier is applicable to the facts of the present case. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. The appellant is entitled to the salary of almost ten months i.e. from 10.8.2000 to 27.5.2001 and the respondents shall pay the same within a period of three months from today, otherwise, it will carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of expiry of three months till payment. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that even before termination during the period July, 1995 to November, 1995, the salaries are unpaid, whereas, in other four cases, it has been paid. A person, who is in service and is discharging his work, has to be paid. Therefore, earlier direction will be applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to pay the salaries of the aforesaid period within a period of three months. 8. With these observations and directions, this Letters Patent Appeal shall stand allowed. Rule is made absolute. No costs.