Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 330 (JHR)

Chidanand Jha v. State of Jharkhand

2012-03-02

P.P.BHATT

body2012
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsels appearing for the Respondent-State of Jharkhand as also Respondent- State of Bihar. 2. Perused the papers. 3. The petitioners by way of the present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction commanding the Respondents to pay to the petitioners, the due salaries, which have been illegally withheld from April, 1990 till date as also the future salary on regular basis. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner no. 1 is a Class III and the petitioner no. 2 is a class IV employee of Pandit Binodanand Jha Balika Sanskrit Prathamik Sah Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Deoghar. The petitioner no. 1 is working on the post of Clerk while the petitioner No. 2 is working on the post of peon in the said School. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the said School is affiliated as a Non-Government School, recognized by Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board and the affairs of the said School are managed by a Managing Committee. 6. It is the case of the petitioners that after establishment of the School in the year 1981, the Managing Committee of the School constituted a Selection Committee for selection of persons for different teaching as well as non-teaching posts in the School. Accordingly, the said Selection Committee after following due process of selection, selected the present petitioners. In the meeting held on 26.02.1981 of the Managing committee, it was unanimously decided to accept the recommendation of the Selection Committee and the Secretary of the Managing Committee issued appointment letters on 01.03.1981 to both the petitioners, asking them to join their respective posts by 30th April, 1981 and in response thereto, both the petitioners joined their respective posts. It is submitted that the petitioners were paid salary from 01.01.1985 to March, 1990, but subsequent thereto, though the petitioners were appointed after following due procedure of appointment against the sanctioned posts, the salary of the petitioners has been withheld illegally by the Respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners further, has referred to and relied upon the various documents annexed to the petition in support of his case. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners further, has referred to and relied upon the various documents annexed to the petition in support of his case. 7. The learned counsel for the Respondent-State of Jharkhand submitted that the State has not filed any counter affidavit and therefore, he requested to grant some time to enable him to file counter affidavit on behalf of the State. But while referring Paras 5, 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, i.e., the Sanskrit Siksha Board, it is submitted that the petitioners' school has not been recognized in accordance with the Rules framed by the State Government as such, the School management is not entitled for any grant against the payment of salary. However, the learned counsel for the Respondent-State of Jharkhand submitted that he has no objection, if the petitioners are permitted to file a detailed representation before the concerned authority of the State. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions and on perusal of the materials on record, it transpires that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Clerk as well as peon in the year 1981. According to the petitioners, after following due process of selection by the Managing Committee of the School, they have been appointed on the sanctioned posts. From the documents annexed with the petition and more particularly from Annexure-13 series annexed with the rejoinder, it appears that the budgetary provisions were made and accordingly, the petitioners have been paid their salaries from 1985 to 1990 and subsequent thereto also, the budgetary provisions were made but salary has not been released and paid to the petitioners. It also transpires that the petitioners are claiming that their appointments have been made after following due process of selection as envisaged vide Annexure-15, i.e. in pursuance to the Government Resolution dated 18th October, 1976 and therefore, according to the petitioners, they are eligible and entitled for salary. However, the Respondents- authorities without any valid reasons withheld the salary of the petitioners since April, 1990. It appears that the present petitioners are rendering services under the Respondents since 1981, and on perusal of materials on record, prima facie, it appears that they have been appointed after following due process of selection required under Government Circular, dated 18th October, 1976. It appears that the present petitioners are rendering services under the Respondents since 1981, and on perusal of materials on record, prima facie, it appears that they have been appointed after following due process of selection required under Government Circular, dated 18th October, 1976. The documents/circulars and office orders, annexed with this petition, also prima facie indicates that the post in question, were sanctioned posts and budgetary provision was also made by the State and accordingly, the petitioners have been paid their salary from 1985 to 1990 but subsequent thereto, the petitioners have not been paid their salary. It is the case of the petitioners that other similarly situated employees are getting their salary regularly. 9. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case and more particularly in view of the fact that the case of the petitioners has been recommended by the District Education Officer, vide letter dated 10.04.2002 (Annexure-11) after reorganization of the State, it is desirable that the concerned authority of the State shall look into the claim put forward by the petitioners, which is also recommended by the District level authorities and decide the same within a reasonable time. Under the circumstances, the petitioners shall submit joint representation addressed to the Director, Secondary Education, Human Resource Development Department, Government of Jharkhand within a period of four weeks from the date of the order and upon receipt of such representation, the Director, Secondary Education, Human Resource Development Department, Government of Jharkhand shall decide the representation submitted by the petitioners within a period of two months thereafter. If the claim put forward by the petitioners is found genuine, then in that case, the payment of salary be released at the earliest. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.