Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 468 (PAT)

Rajeev Ranjan v. State of Bihar

2013-04-08

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2013
ORDER In absence of any clear and cogent explanation or evidence coming from the respondent authorities including the Panchayat that except U.P.C. there was any other methodology adopted for communication of the date of counseling to the candidates, the reason given by the Tribunal that there was proper communication and there was also a news published in the newspaper ‘Aaj’ satisfies the requirement to oust the claim of the private respondent is totally erroneous. The Court is not required to go into the issue of appointment of the petitioner on the post of panchayat teacher taking into consideration the ratio of a decision rendered in the case of Chitranjan Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2010(4) PLJR 183 which has settled the law so order of removal of petitioner is not required to be set aside. 2. The Tribunal, however, has exceeded its jurisdiction and has shown scant understanding of law or ignorance of law by giving direction for recovery of salary from the present petitioner as a Public demand. 3. The Public Demand Recovery Act is a composite Act by itself. Only such demands which have been incorporated in the Act can be recovered as a public demand and it is no business of any authority, which includes the Tribunal to direct recovery of any money as a public demand. That portion of the order surely requires to be interfered with and that finding and direction is therefore quashed. No recovery is required to be made from the petitioner since he has a right to claim salary for the period he has already worked before his removal, which is another issue altogether. 4. Stand of the private respondent is that in furtherance of the decision of the Tribunal he has been appointed and has been working. After the stay order passed by this Court on 2.4.2010, everything has come to standstill in the sense that payment of salary of the private respondent has also been stopped by the Panchayat, in the garb of the stay order. 5. It is made clear that the private respondent would continue on the job and will be entitled for payment of salary for the period he has been working. 6. This writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. 5. It is made clear that the private respondent would continue on the job and will be entitled for payment of salary for the period he has been working. 6. This writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. Nothing is required to be done with regard to the order of removal of the petitioner from the post of panchayat teacher.