Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 948 (JHR)

Sewan Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2007-12-22

M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM

body2007
ORDER M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J. 1. Sewan Singh, the petitioner herein, aggrieved by the non-compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 18.9.2006, has filed the Contempt Petition. 2. The petitioner is working as Surveillance Worker in the Health Department. As due promotion was not given and payment of salary from June 2004 onwards was not made, he filed a petition before this Court for mandamus seeking for a direction in W.P.(C) No. 2446 of 2006. 3. In the said writ petition, the learned Single Judge, after hearing the counsel for the parties, passed the following order: Claim of the petitioner for arrears of salary is already admitted. Petitioner has been paid salary up to April, 2006. Salary for the period May, 2006 onwards be paid to the petitioner and further salary be released regularly. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has requisite qualification of Matric to his credit. If he has this qualification, let him produce the requisite documents before the respondents. On being satisfied with the qualifications of the petitioner and other eligible criterion respondents will consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Surveillance Inspector otherwise no such consideration is required. In the event, petitioner is found to be eligible, consideration be accorded for promotion within a period of three months. 4. The above order would indicate that direction has been given to pay the salary from May 2006 onwards regularly and consider his claim for promotion as he claimed to have requisite qualification of matric to his credit for promotion. 5. despite the order, there was no response by the department in compliance with the orders passed by this Court, therefore, the petitioner filed this contempt petition. 6. According to the counsel for the petitioner, after the order dated 18.9.2006 was passed, petitioner sent a representation along with the documents relating to the matriculation qualification and salary from October 2006 was not paid even though the petitioner is regularly doing his duty. 7. 6. According to the counsel for the petitioner, after the order dated 18.9.2006 was passed, petitioner sent a representation along with the documents relating to the matriculation qualification and salary from October 2006 was not paid even though the petitioner is regularly doing his duty. 7. In the show cause reply dated 27.6.2007, filed on 5.7.2007 by the opposite party, it is stated that the claim of the petitioner for promotion was considered in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 18.9.2006 and the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department passed a reasoned order vide Memo No. 338(9) dated 25.6.2007 rejecting the claim of the petitioner since the petitioner does not possess the qualification of matriculation with science subject. In regard to the salary it is stated that salary up to September 2006 has been paid and thereafter petitioner absenting from duty since October 2006 without giving any information of leave application to the concerned officer and so the salary was not paid for the subsequent period. 8. Refuting the above stand, a rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner on 3.8.2007, stating that the statement with regard to his alleged absence since October 2006 is wrong and incorrect, and on the other hand, the petitioner has been regular in his duties, but he was not allowed to put his signature on the attendance register nor is he being paid the salary even that of surveillance workers scale. 9. This statement made in the rejoinder by the petitioner has not been denied. Admittedly, there is no material placed by the opposite parties to show that the necessary action has been taken for the alleged unauthorized absence. 10. As a matter of fact, by the order dated 25.7.2007. the counsel for the opposite party was directed to produce the records to find out whether any action has been taken against him for his alleged unauthorized absence, but despite that materials have not been placed before this Court. 11. Therefore, I find substance in the statement of the petitioners rejoinder dated 3.8.2007 that he was not allowed to put his signature on the attendance register, even though he is regularly attending his duty. 12. So, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, it would be appropriate to give liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order rejecting the claim for promotion in Memo No. 338(9) date 25.6.2007 in the appropriate forum. 13. 12. So, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, it would be appropriate to give liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order rejecting the claim for promotion in Memo No. 338(9) date 25.6.2007 in the appropriate forum. 13. The opposite party is directed to give the salary to the petitioner from October 2006 and allow the petitioner to put his signature on the attendance register regularly without giving any room for any complaint against the opposite party whatsoever in the future. With these observations, this contempt petition is disposed of.