Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1197 (JHR)

Sita Ram Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2009-08-26

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
Order The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand (Opposite Party No.3) is physically present in court today in compliance with the order dated passed on 12.8.2009. 2. Show-cause replies have been filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 3, explaining the factual position regarding compliance of the court's orders passed in CWJC No. 2776 of 1994(R) and LPA No. 270 of 2004. 3. It is explained that pursuant to the orders passed by the Single Bench in CWJC No. 2776 of 1994(R) on 28.7.1997, the respondents have released and paid a sum of Rs. 5,78,723/- to the petitioner, after assessing the sum payable to him, by way of salary from 1980 onwards. 4. As regards the petitioner's claim for salary for the period prior to 1980 i.e. from 21.5.1974 the date on which he joined service, it is explained that Service Book of the petitioner is not available with the respondent authorities. The Secretary (Opposite Party NO.3) would explain in person that, as per the Circular issued by the Education Department, a practice has been adopted and has been maintained for more than 15 years, by which teachers are supposed to maintain their Service Book Service. Book of the petitioner, if any, is therefore expected to be with the petitioner himself. 5. Secretary would further explain that after this court's order passed on 12.8.2009, she had herself taken up the matter in right earnest calling upon the concerned Headmaster of the School and after going through the entire records, it was found that no document whatsoever relating to the petitioner's Service Records are available. Under such circumstances and with an anxiety to comply with the court's order, the petitioner was called upon to cooperate and submit his Service Book, Pension Papers and other documents so as to enable the concerned authorities of the respondents to assess the amount which may be payable to him and to make complete compliance of the court's order. It is submitted that the petitioner has not come forward with any cooperation from his side. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, on the other hand, that the present stand taken by the respondents that Service Book is not available with them, appears to be contradictory to the statements made by the respondents earlier and the statements as appearing in the show-cause replies. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, on the other hand, that the present stand taken by the respondents that Service Book is not available with them, appears to be contradictory to the statements made by the respondents earlier and the statements as appearing in the show-cause replies. 7. Learned counsel explains that in the show-cause replies, the stand appears to have been taken by the respondents, on the basis of the purported statement of the Headmaster of the School, that the petitioner's Service Book was never opened at all. Learned counsel argues that if the petitioner's Service Book was never opened at all, then there could be no occasion for the petitioner to retain the same with him. Learned counsel adds further that as per the affirmed declaration of the petitioner, he does not have his Service Book in his possession as it was never given to him and neither has ~he petitioner received any communication from the respondent authorities to appear before them on any specific date for the purported cooperation to be extended from his side. 8. In the light of the explanation given by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there could be no controversy to the fact that the date of appointment of the petitioner in service has to be treated from the date acknowledged before this court in the earlier writ application, as also in LPA, as 21.5.1974 and the same having been confirmed even up to the Apex Court, and in the light of the observation made by this court both by the Single Bench as also by the Division Bench in LPA, the petitioner is deemed to be in service from the date of his appointment. The respondents ought to have computed the salary payable for the petitioner's service accordingly. 9. As regards the respondent's claim that for the period the petitioner did not work or was absent, he cannot make any claim for his salary for that period, there could be no dispute that the petitioner would net be entitled for salary or such other benefits for the period during which he did not work or was absent from his duty without leave. 10. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondent authorities are directed to ensure that Service Book, if need be, is constructed and prepared in accordance with the Rules and in this process if the petitioner's cooperation is required, the respondents would intimate a date to the petitioner for his appearance before the concerned authorities of the respondents. Such date shall be effectively communicated to the petitioner within ten days from the date of this order and the petitioner, on his part, shall appear before the concerned authorities and shall also' produce whatever documents which may be in his possession, to enable the respondent authorities to make proper assessment on his claim for amount payable to him under the various Heads. The entire exercise must be completed within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the petitioner before the concerned authorities. 11. Let this case be posted on Wednesday at the 2nd week of 3rd month from today under the same heading. By that date, the respondent authorities shall file supplementary show-cause affirming due compliance of this order. 12. Personal appearance of the opposite party no. 3 is dispensed with.