Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1067 (JHR)

Nageshwar Prasad Singh v. Union of India

2009-08-01

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
Order Heard Sri Krishna Murari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the respondent C.C.L. 2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction to the' respondents to pay him the dues of salary for the month of January 1993 and for the period of suspension between February, 1993 and August, 1993 and also to pay the amount of Rs. 9,716/- which was directed by the Labour Court, Ranchi in M.J. Case No. 13 of 1996 and other dues which have not been paid to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would explain that during the period of the petitioner's service, he was put under suspension on two occasions. On the first occasion, though he was paid the subsistence allowance but upon conclusion of the departmental enquiry, he was awarded with a warning and the suspension was revoked. The petitioner being entitled to the balance of the salary for the suspension period, had demanded the same but the amount was not paid and the dispute was therefore referred to the Labour Court which had decided the matter in favour of the petitioner directing the respondent employer to pay a sum of Rs. 9,716/- to the petitioner. This order was passed way back on 23.12.1998. The respondents have not honoured the above directions of the Labour Court. Learned counsel submits further that on the second occasion though the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, but the same remained inconclusive till the petitioner's retirement in the year 2000. The salary for the suspension period, has not been paid to the petitioner between February, 1993 to August, 1993. 4. The petitioner has therefore, prayed that the entire payment, which is legally and legitimately due to him, should be paid by the respondents together with the interest @ 18% per annum. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as it appears from the pleadings of the petitioner, the representation which has been filed by him, is presently pending consideration. The respondents may be directed accordingly to dispose of the petitioner's representation within a specified period. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as it appears from the pleadings of the petitioner, the representation which has been filed by him, is presently pending consideration. The respondents may be directed accordingly to dispose of the petitioner's representation within a specified period. 6. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner may file a fresh representation within one month from the date of this order and within two months from the date of receipt of representation, the concerned authorities of the respondent employer shall consider the same and take an appropriate decision by passing a reasoned and speaking order and if the petitioner is found entitled to the dues which he has claimed, the respondents shall ensure that payment of all such dues is made to the petitioner within one month from the date of decision taken on the petitioner's representation. The amount calculated as payable to the petitioner shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date when it fell due till final payment. With these observations, this writ application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the respondent C.C.L.