Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 559 (JHR)

Ranthi Deo Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2009-04-16

D.N.PATEL

body2009
JUDGMENT : D.N. Patel, J.-The present petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that though the present petitioners have worked as a Basic Health Worker and Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (A.N.M.) from February, 2000, July, 2000 to October, 2000, February, 2001, January, 2002 and February, 2002, for no justifiable reason their salary for these months have not been paid and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioners. 2. It is also submitted vehemently by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have actually worked for the aforesaid months and therefore, the higher officers of the petitioners have also demanded certain sum of money from the Government for disbursement of their salary as per Annexures-2, 3 and 4 of the memo of present petitioner. Thus, it reflects that work was being done for the aforesaid period satisfactorily, without any objection and no grievance has ever been ventilated by the respondents for the work done by the petitioners for the aforesaid period. Despite these facts, no salary has been paid for the aforesaid months to the petitioners and, therefore, the present petition may be allowed and the salary for the aforesaid months may be directed to be paid as expeditiously as possible. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, who has vehemently submitted that in fact the Government has received the letter from the higher officers of the petitioners for release of the sizeable amount, as stated in Annexures-2, 3 and 4 of the memo of present petition for disbursement of the salary. But no detailed list of Sub-Centers of the State of Jharkhand in the said allotment was found out and, therefore, the bill was not passed by the Treasury. This reason has been referred in paragraph no. 7 of the counter affidavit, filed by respondent no. 6. Likewise, looking to the counter affidavit, it also appears that there was non-availability of fund and some amount was to be recovered from petitioner no. 1 and, therefore, salary was not paid for the aforesaid period and, therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. 7 of the counter affidavit, filed by respondent no. 6. Likewise, looking to the counter affidavit, it also appears that there was non-availability of fund and some amount was to be recovered from petitioner no. 1 and, therefore, salary was not paid for the aforesaid period and, therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that:- (i) the petitioners have admittedly worked for the months of February, 2000, July, 2000 to October, 2000, February, 2001, January, 2002 and for the month of February, 2002. No grievance has been ventilated by the respondents, ever before, that the petitioners have not worked, satisfactorily for the aforesaid period; (ii) from Annexures-2, 3 and 4 of the memo of present petition it appears that the higher officers of the petitioners have demanded money from the Government for disbursement of the salary etc. Thus, even as per the higher officers of the petitioners, the petitioners have worked for the aforesaid period; (iii) even as per the affidavit, filed by the respondents, never any grievance has been ventilated that the petitioners' work was not satisfactory for the aforesaid period. On the contrary, looking to the reasons given in paragraph no. 7 of the counter affidavit it appears that there was some error, in the bill raised, by the office of the petitioners and the number of some Sub-Centers were not matching, from the aforesaid different months and for some other months and, therefore, the bills were not passed for few months for the aforesaid different months and for some other months salary was not paid because fund was not available as per paragraph no. 7(i) of the counter affidavit. 5. These reasons are not the valid, genuine or cogent enough for withholding the salary of the petitioners. So far as recovery of certain amount from the salary of petitioner no. 1 is concerned, never any notice for recovery has been served upon the petitioner nor any opportunity of being heard was given to petitioner no. 1. Therefore, I hereby direct the concerned respondent to make payment of salary to all the four petitioners for the following months:- (a) February, 2000; (b) July 2000 to October, 2000; (c) February, 2001; (d) January, 2002; and (e) February, 2002. 6. 1. Therefore, I hereby direct the concerned respondent to make payment of salary to all the four petitioners for the following months:- (a) February, 2000; (b) July 2000 to October, 2000; (c) February, 2001; (d) January, 2002; and (e) February, 2002. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the salary for the month of February, 2000 has already been paid. This fact is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and, therefore, the salary for the month of February, 2000 is not pressed by the present petitioners, on the basis of the averments, made ill the counter affidavit. 7. So far as recovery of amount from petitioner no. 1 is concerned, the respondents are at liberty to issue notice and after proper opportunity of being heard to petitioner no. 1, and in accordance with law, the amount can be deducted, if it is legally payable by petitioner no. 1 to the respondent-State. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this is a final hearing and during the intervening period if the salary for the aforesaid period has already been paid, fully or partly, the same should be given as a set of. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that they have no objection for setting of the amount, if already paid or partly paid, towards salary. 10. Thus, the respondents are at liberty to deduct the amount of salary of the aforesaid period, if it has already been paid after filing of the present petition. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners is not claiming any payment of salary on the basis of higher pay scale, but, is insisting that on the existing pay scale as on that date, the salary be paid for aforesaid months to the petitioners. 12. Thus, for calculation of payment of salary, pay scale existing during those months will be considered by the respondents. 13. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed to the aforesaid extent.