Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 493 (JHR)

Chandra Bhushan Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

2010-04-19

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2010
JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners in this writ application have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay the petitioners the non practicing allowance to which they claim entitlement according to the Government Circular dated 28.03.2002 (annexure3). 3. In the counter affidavit of the respondents it is informed that out of the 15 petitioners, non practicing allowance has been sanctioned in favour of 11 petitioners upon considering the fact that they had submitted their declarations as required under the Government Notification (Annexure3) within the period stipulated i.e. within May, 2000. As regards the remaining 4 petitioners, it is informed by the counsel for the Accountant General that the sanction for payment of non practicing allowance has not been given to them on account of the fact that the instruction regarding these 4 doctors was not received from the concerned department of the State Government and as it appears, these 4 doctors have not submitted their respective declarations within the period stipulated in the Government Circular (Annexure3). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, would counter these statements by referring to the copies of the declarations furnished by each of these 4 petitioners who have been excluded and submit that as would appear from the dates mentioned in the declarations, under the signatures of the petitioners concerned, they had submitted their respective declarations well within time before the Principal of the concerned college who, as it appears, had delayed in forwarding the declarations of the 4 petitioners to the State Government within time. Learned counsel argues that for the fault of the Principal in delaying the forwarding of the declarations, the remaining 4 petitioners should not be made to suffer. 5. Having heard the counsel for the parties and having gone through the documents on record, including the declarations purported to have been submitted by the petitioners, it appears that though the declarations as in the case of petitioner Dr. Ashok Kumar Prasad bears the date 01.05.2000 as the date of submission of the declaration and similar is in the case of the other three doctors, but it appears that the declarations were forwarded much later by the Principal of the concerned college. 6. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the concerned authorities of the respondents including the Respondent Nos. Ashok Kumar Prasad bears the date 01.05.2000 as the date of submission of the declaration and similar is in the case of the other three doctors, but it appears that the declarations were forwarded much later by the Principal of the concerned college. 6. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the concerned authorities of the respondents including the Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 shall verify from the declarations received from the 3 petitioners namely the petitioner No. 9 Dr. Vinay Pratap, petitioner No. 11 Dr. Ramesh Kumar Shrivastava and petitioner No. 15 Dr. Ashok Kumar Prasad as to whether their declarations were submitted within the period stipulated in the Government Notification (Annexure3) and if it is found that their names could not be forwarded on account of the delay and latches on the part of the Principal of the college concerned, then to reconsider the case of these three petitioners and pass appropriate orders on their claim for non practicing allowance for the relevant period. This exercise must be taken up and concluded within a period of two months from the date of this order. As regards the petitioner No. 12 Dr. Shambhu Sharan who has also not been given the benefit of non practicing allowance, it is informed by the counsel for the petitioner that the said petitioner has died during the pendency of this writ application. As such, it would be for the concerned authorities of the respondents to consider the claim, if made on behalf of the deceased petitioner No. 12 by a surviving legal representative and pass appropriate order on the same. With the above observations, this application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondents.