Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1414 (JHR)

Indra Narayan Jha v. State of Jharkhand

2009-11-10

J.C.S.RAWAT

body2009
Judgment This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for direction upon the respondents to forthwith release the entire arrears of dues which has been withheld in pursuant to the order of punishment passed by the State of Bihar vide Circular No. 829 dated 10.9.2001 by which, the three annual increments have been withheld with cumulative effect, on the ground that the said order dated 10.9.2001 has already been set aside by the order dated 11.9.07 passed in WPS No. 1149 of 2006 by a Bench of this Court as such the petition is entitled to get the entire arrears of dues which has been withheld in pursuant to the said Circular since the same is not in existence after being set aside by this Court. In substance, the State of Bihar vide order dated 10.9.01 withheld three increments with cumulative effect as punishment awarded to the petitioner and the salary during the period of suspension as the subsistence allowance, was not ordered to be paid. He further claimed that he is entitled to full payment for the period when he remained in suspension. It is also alleged that the said punishment order was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition 1149/2006 and the Court on 11.9.07 passed the following order; “The authority of the Jharkhand Government was only competent to take a decision after the petitioner was relieved from Bihar and, therefore, the impugned order dated 10.9.01 is set aside without going into the merits thereof, and the matter is remitted to the Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Govt. of Jharkhand (respondent No. 2). The Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Bihar, Patna (respondent No. 4) is directed to send all the records of the petitioner to the Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Govt. of Jharkhand (respondent No. 2) within two weeks form the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, if not already sent. The respondent No. 2 will supply a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of the records to which the petitioner may file his reply within two weeks, thereafter. The respondent No. 2 will take a decision in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of such reply from the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 will take a decision in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of such reply from the petitioner. If no such reply is received, the respondent No. 2 will be at liberty to pass order after considering the enquiry report and the materials available on the record”. When no proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and no payment of arrears of his salary was made for the last two years then this petition has been preferred by the petitioner. In -the counter affidavit, the respondent has categorically stated as follows; “Shri Jha challenged the orders passed by the Govt. of Bihar in the Hon’ble High Court which was pleased to quash the same on the ground of jurisdiction. However, the Hon’ble High Court was also pleased to remit the case to the State Govt. of Jharkhand to decide the same within a prescribed time frame. Accordingly, thereafter, the records of case were perused and it was decided that the punishment awarded to Shri Jha be allowed to continue for which proposal was submitted to the Competent Authority for approval. But the route of file movement being lengthy one, the time limit given by the Hon’ble High Court passed and the orders could not be passed”. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. After going through the pleadings of the parties, it is clearly revealed that the punishment order awarded by the State of Bihar has been set aside by this Court on the ground of jurisdiction and the matter was remitted back to the disciplinary authority of Jharkhand and he was directed to proceed with inquiry in accordance with law. According to the counter affidavit, it is clear that still the matter is under consideration and no punishment order has been passed and there is no punishment order against the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to get the arrears of salary as well as the increment which was withheld by the State of Bihar under the punishment order, which has been set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner further states at the Bar that the petitioner served the State of Jharkhand. Now he has been superannuated in the year 2008. . The learned counsel for the petitioner further states at the Bar that the petitioner served the State of Jharkhand. Now he has been superannuated in the year 2008. . In view of the above, the petitioner is entitled to get the arrears of salary as well as the increment, which was withheld by the State of Bihar by way of the punishment. How there is no such punishment order in existence. After the disposal of the writ petition, the State of Jharkhand has not passed any punishment order till today. It is however, made clear that the respondent would be at liberty to proceed with enquiry as directed by the Court. If the respondents comes to the conclusion any amount released to him is liable to be recovered it will be the liberty of respondent to do so. It is needless to say that the respondent shall pay the entire amount within a period of five months form the date of this order. Accordingly, this petition is allowed with above observations. No order as to costs.