Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 607 (JHR)

Teresa Kujur v. State of Jharkhand

2009-04-24

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
JUDGMENT : Grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is against the office order, issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Latehar as contained in Memo No. 1884, dated 31.12.2007 (Annexure-10), whereby the petitioner’s salary for a period of about three years and five months has been stopped by the Respondents. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondent-State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 24.05.1976 and while working as a Teacher in the Primary School, Kewarki, Mahuatanr, Latehar, by an order of transfer, she was transferred to another School. Against the order of her transfer she filed a representation before the concerned authorities to withdraw the order of transfer and to allow her to continue in the same school on account of her physical disabilities and pending decision on the representation, she had continued to remain in the same School and when the petitioner’s salary was not paid, she filed representations before the District Superintendent of Education and also before the Director, Primary Education. Learned counsel explains further that by order dated 04.12.2007 (Annexure-8), the Director, Primary Education had issued a direction to the District Superintendent of Education, Latehar to consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of her salary for the period for which, she had actually served at the School and in pursuance to the aforesaid order of the Director, Primary Education, the District Superintendent of Education, Latehar vide his Office Order dated 12.12.2007 (Annexure-9) had directed the Headmaster-cum-Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the School to pay the salary to the petitioner for the period, which she had actually worked, after conducting a preliminary enquiry. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the aforesaid orders passed both by the Director, Primary Education as also by the District Superintendent of Education, Latehar, the salary for the period, for which the petitioner had actually worked, was not paid to her and this is in apparent defiance of the order of the Director, Primary Education, Latehar. Learned counsel adds further that the refusal of the salary for the period, for which the petitioner had actually rendered her services, amounts to a punishment imposed for not complying with the order of her transfer. Learned counsel adds further that the refusal of the salary for the period, for which the petitioner had actually rendered her services, amounts to a punishment imposed for not complying with the order of her transfer. Learned counsel for the Respondents on the other hand, submits that as directed by the District Superintendent of Education, an enquiry was conducted into the conduct of the petitioner for defying the order of her transfer and at its meeting dated 22.12.2007, the District Education (Establishment) Committee, had resolved to transfer the petitioner to another School and also to withhold her salary for the period from the date of issuance of the earlier transfer order and till the date on which the resolution was passed. From the facts and circumstances of the case as it would appear, the matter was earlier considered by the Director, Primary Education and as per his directions, the concerned District Superintendent of Education was directed to ensure that the petitioner is paid her salary for the period, for which she has actually worked. It appears that the services of the petitioner continued to be taken by the School from where she was supposed to be transferred, during the past three years prior to the date when the impugned order was passed. If the services of the petitioner was taken by the Respondents at the School, there is no reason as to why she should not be paid the salary for the services rendered by her. If the withholding of the salary is by way of punishment to the petitioner for defying the earlier transfer order, then such order could be passed only after conducting an enquiry and after explaining the charge against her, which has not been done in this case. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 31.12.2007 (Annexure-9), is hereby set aside. The District Superintendent of Education, Latehar (Respondent No. 5), is directed to consider afresh the demand of the petitioner for payment of her salary for the period which she had actually worked, after assessing such period from the records of the School and shall communicate his decision to the petitioner effectively. If the petitioner is found to have worked during the period, then the Respondent No. 5 shall assess the salary payable for such period and shall ensure payment of the amount to the petitioner. If the petitioner is found to have worked during the period, then the Respondent No. 5 shall assess the salary payable for such period and shall ensure payment of the amount to the petitioner. This exercise must be carried out within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With these observations, this writ application stands disposed of at the stage of admission itself. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the Respondent-State.