Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 35 (JHR)

Ramesh Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand

2010-01-06

DABBIRU GANESHRAO PATNAIK

body2010
JUDGMENT : D.G.R. PATNAIK, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners in this writ application have prayed for a direction upon the Respondents to immediately and forthwith publish/implement the Report of the Committee constituted to enquire into the legality/propriety of the appointments of the surplus employees of Non-Formal/Mass Education. A further prayer has been made for declaration that the petitioners cannot be treated as employees of Non-Formal/Mass Education nor can be treated as surplus employees and rather, to treat them as employees of Adult Education. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay them their salary from 16.05.2001 till the date of filing of this writ application. 3. It is informed that during the pendency of this writ application, petitioners have been absorbed in the service under the respondents from February, 2008, though the salary for the period from 16.05.2001 till the date of their absorption in service have not been paid to them. 4. Counsel for the Respondent-State submits, by referring to the statements contained in the counter affidavit that, on verification, it was found that the petitioners have not worked during the period for which they have claimed salary and as such, no salary can be given to them. 5. As it appears from the rival submissions, the controversy as raised by the petitioners is on account of their names being forwarded to the Committee which was constituted to enquire into the legality/propriety of the appointments of surplus employees of Non-Formal/Mass Education, though they were originally employees in the department of Adult Education and they could not therefore, be treated as employees of Non-Formal/Mass Education. 6. The petitioners' case is that in response to the advertisement issued by the Labour and Employment Department, Patna, Bihar, on 26.06.1979 for appointment of eligible candidates to 32 posts of Statistical Assistant and 2 Junior Statistical Assistant, they had submitted their respective applications, annexing therewith their Graduate degrees in the Statistics and Mathematics. 7. Interview letters were issued to them under the signature of the Director, Adult Education, Bihar, Patna, on whose behalf the advertisement was originally issued. Upon being selected after the interview, the petitioners were appointed on the post of Senior Statistical Assistant, re-designated as Statistical-cum-Evaluation Supervisors, sometimes in the year 1986. 8. Thus, the petitioners had worked continuously on the aforesaid post for more than 24 years without any brake. Upon being selected after the interview, the petitioners were appointed on the post of Senior Statistical Assistant, re-designated as Statistical-cum-Evaluation Supervisors, sometimes in the year 1986. 8. Thus, the petitioners had worked continuously on the aforesaid post for more than 24 years without any brake. In para 18 of the writ application, the petitioners have admitted that in due course, they were posted in the District Mass Education Office in the various districts. 9. After bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar, the petitioners were posted in the State of Jharkhand. 10. It appears that a press communique was published in the Newspaper dated 25.01.2002, under the signature of the Secretary, (Primary, Secondary and mass Education), Jharkhand, Ranchi, by which the decision of the Central Government dated 31.03.2001 was communicated to the effect that the Non-Formal Education Programme has been closed and as such, the Government had called for the details of the surplus regular employees in the format published, so that they can be adjusted/absorbed. 11. The petitioners assert that they were initially appointed and working in the Adult Education department and they cannot be treated as employees of the Non-Formal Education Programme. 12. Further grievance of the petitioners is that on the plea that Non-Formal Education Programme has been abolished, they were not paid their salary from 16.05.2001, although the petitioners continue to remain on role as employees under the concerned department and they were neither retrenched nor their services terminated. 13. Counsel for the petitioners, by referring to the judgment in the case of Bhubneswar Mahto case in W.P. (S) No. 4751 of 2003, submits that the same objection was taken by the respondents in respect of the payment of salary, as raised in the present writ application. This Court on considering the facts of the case, had observed that the writ petitioner was admittedly working since long, but after the closer of the Non-Formal Education Project, the employees who were earlier engaged, were not retrenched and the authority concerned did not take any work from such employees. There being no latches on the part of the employees, the respondent cannot deny the payment of salary to the employees. There being no latches on the part of the employees, the respondent cannot deny the payment of salary to the employees. Learned Counsel submits that the facts of the present case are identical to the facts in the case of Bhubneswar Mahto (supra) and hence, the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief as decided in the case of Bhubneswar Mahto (supra). 14. In the counter affidavit of the respondents, the specific stand taken thereby is that the Adult Education Scheme was revised in the year 1992 and pursuant to such revision, all such employees working under different project offices of Adult education, were shifted under the Non-Formal Education Scheme under the same Directorate, i.e. the Directorate of Adult Education, Government of Bihar. The Adult Education office at the district level was the monitoring office of the scheme of each district. Due to such revision of the scheme, the nomenclature was also changed at the Directorate and District level and the term Mass Education was effected in place of the Adult Education. 15. Further stand of the respondents is that the Non-Formal Education Programme was a time bound scheme sponsored by the Central Government. The scheme was closed by the decision of the Government of India with effect from 01.04.2001 whereafter, the State Government also closed the scheme with effect from the same date. As a result thereof, the employees who were working under the scheme were no more considered to be employees of the State Government with effect from 16.05.2001. Since the relevant establishment of Mass and Non-Formal Education was also closed, it is contended that under such circumstances, the petitioners having not remained employees with effect from 16.05.2001 and they cannot claim any salary for the period after 16.05.2001. 16. The fact that the petitioners ultimately came to be the employees of the Mass Education Department, has been admitted by the present petitioners in their statements at para 18 of the writ application. Now, that the petitioners have been absorbed in service, the only issue which remains to be decided is whether the petitioners are entitled to claim and receive salary from 16.05.2001, in the respective dates of their absorption. 17. Now, that the petitioners have been absorbed in service, the only issue which remains to be decided is whether the petitioners are entitled to claim and receive salary from 16.05.2001, in the respective dates of their absorption. 17. Having heard the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that though the scheme under the Mass Formal Education Project was abolished and the employees under the scheme were considered as surplus, but the Government had also taken a decision to absorb all such purportedly surplus employees in various other departments of the Government. The concerned authorities of the respondents did not ever contemplate to terminate the services of the petitioners and similarly situated employees or to retrench them. Yet, the authorities concerned did not take any work from the petitioners. In the light of these facts, the ratio decided in the Bhubneswar Mahto's case does squarely apply to the facts of the present case. There being no latches on the part of the petitioners, the respondents cannot deny the payment of salary to the petitioners. The Respondent-State Government is duty bound to pay salary to the petitioners since after the abolition of the Non-Formal Education Project, even though, the authorities concerned did not take any work from the petitioners, without there being any latches on their part. 18. In the facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to pay the petitioners their salary for the period from 16.05.2001 till September, 2007, within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the amount payable shall carry interest @ 5% per annum till the date of final payment. 19. With these observations, this writ application is disposed of.