Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1554 (JHR)

Mukul Kumar Thakur v. State of Jharkhand

2009-12-08

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner in this writ application has confined his prayer to his claim for payment of salary for the period which he had worked under the respondents. 3. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been stated that upon the claim of the petitioner being verified from the records, the claim that the petitioner has worked from February, 1999 to September, 1999, could not be confirmed, in view of the fact that no records pertaining to the aforesaid period is available in the office of the respondents and, therefore, in absence of confirmation, the respondents are not liable to pay salary to the petitioner to the aforesaid period. However, as regards the claim for salary for the period from October, 1999 to August, 2000, the respondents acknowledged the same and assured that the petitioner shall be paid his salary for the aforesaid period, since the fact that he had worked during that period, has been confirmed from the records available. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that a categorical stand taken by the petitioner that he had worked from February, 1999 to September, 1999 continuously, has not been specifically denied by the respondents. The mere fact that the records are not available in the office of the respondents, cannot led to the conclusion that the petitioner did not work for the period. As per the counter affidavit, the respondents have not specifically denied or disputed the petitioner's claim that he has worked from February, 1999 to September, 1999. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced copies of the Attendance Excerpts, which was obtained by him from the office of the respondents pertaining to the period from February, 1999 to September, 1999 and claims that the monthly excerpts would indicate the dates on which the petitioner's attendance has been marked absent and the dates when he has been marked present. 6. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to assess the total amount of salary payable to the petitioner from October, 1999 to August, 2000 within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. 6. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to assess the total amount of salary payable to the petitioner from October, 1999 to August, 2000 within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. As regards the petitioner's claim for payment of salary from February, 1999 to September, 1999 is concerned, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a representation before the concerned authorities of the respondent, annexing thereto, all the documents on which he places reliance and within one month from the date of receipt of the representation, the concerned authorities of the respondents shall consider the same, verify the genuineness of the documents produced by the petitioner and upon being satisfied that the same were issued by the office of the respondents and genuine, shall assess the salary payable for the period claimed and pay the same within one month from the decision taken on the petitioner's representation. The decision so taken shall be effectively communicated to the petitioner. With these observations, this writ application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondent- State.