Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1178 (JHR)

Maskoor Ahmad Mallik v. State of Jharkhand

2009-08-24

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
Judgment The petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay forthwith the retiral benefits including the pension, provident fund, gratuity, leave salary and other allowances including arrears of salary for the period from August 2004 to April 2006, together with interest and penal interest @18% per annum from the date of retirement, till the actual payment. 2. Heard Shri A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and JC to Sr. SC-II for the respondents. 3. The petitioner was employed under the respondent Jamshedpur Co-operative Stores Limited. Though, since the date of his appointment in November 1968, he used to receive his salary every month regularly up to March 2004, but thereafter, consequent upon appointment of the Deputy Commissioner as Administrator of the Co-operative Stores and Executive Officer of the Co-operative Stores, payment of the petitioner’s salary was disturbed. When the petitioner agitated over non-payment of his salary, he was put under suspension. Ultimately, his services were terminated on 21.7.2004 by the order of the Executive Officer of the Stores. The dispute regarding the petitioner’s termination was referred to the Deputy Commissioner, who entrusted the matter to the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies to conduct an inquiry and submit a report. The Inquiry Report submitted by the Deputy Registrar, confirmed that the order of the petitioner’s termination from service was illegal. In spite of the favourable report submitted by the Deputy Registrar when the petitioner and several others were not reinstated in service, the petitioner and other employees filed a writ application before this court vide W.P.(S) No. 5480 of 2005. While disposing of the writ application vide order dated 25.1.2006, this court had directed the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur to take an appropriate decision regarding the petitioner’s reinstatement in service and to pass appropriate order after taking into consideration the Inquiry Report submitted by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies. 4. The Deputy Commissioner had thereafter passed order on 2.5.2006 (Annexure-2) whereby it was ordered that the petitioner and several other employees are reinstated in service with effect from 2.5.2006. The said order was subsequently amended by another order dated 2.5.2006 whereby order of reinstatement was modified with a condition that the employees would not claim or receive any salary for the period during which they were out of service, on the principle of “No Work No Pay”. 5. The said order was subsequently amended by another order dated 2.5.2006 whereby order of reinstatement was modified with a condition that the employees would not claim or receive any salary for the period during which they were out of service, on the principle of “No Work No Pay”. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner explains that the petitioner had retired from service on 31.5.2006, but in spite of repeated demands, the retiral benefits have not been paid to him. 6. Counsel for the respondents, by referring to the statements contained in the counter-affidavit, submits that the petitioner’s demand for payment of salary for the period when he was out of service, is totally illegal and contrary to the order of reinstatement which he had accepted without any murmur. Learned counsel explains that the offer of reinstatement in service was given to the petitioner with the condition that he would not claim or receive any salary for the period during which he was out of service and the petitioner has accepted his appointment by way of reinstatement only with the aforesaid condition and he cannot now make any grievance for non-payment of the salary. As regards the payment of other retiral benefits, it was for the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities including the GPF and Insurance Authorities and the petitioner having failed to do so, he cannot raise any grievance in this respect. Learned counsel for the respondents has though claimed that the petitioner ought to have approached the concerned authorities, but has failed to provide any such Rules or Procedure whereby the employee may approach the concerned authorities directly for payment of his GPF and Insurance claim. 7. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner may file a fresh representation, within ten days from the date of this order, stating his entire claims and enclosing all relevant and necessary documents in support thereof, before the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum-cum-Administrator, Jamshedpur Co-operative Stores Limited, Jamshedpur (Respondent No. 4) and within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the representation, the respondent no. 4 shall take appropriate measures to ensure that the entire amount of retiral benefits to which the petitioner may be entitled, is paid to the petitioner. 4 shall take appropriate measures to ensure that the entire amount of retiral benefits to which the petitioner may be entitled, is paid to the petitioner. Further, since admittedly, the amounts towards his retiral benefits, have not been paid to the petitioner within a reasonable time after his retirement, the amount so payable, shall carry interest @6% per annum, calculated from the date when the amount became payable and till the 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 respondents.