Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 645 (RAJ)

Balwant Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2013-04-01

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner was initially appointed in the year 2007 in Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Spinning and Ginning Mils Federation Ltd., Hanumangarh. Thereafter he was sent on deputation for a period of one year on the post of Helper in the office of Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Division Hanumangarh vide order dated 12.1.2007 and till date he is continuing on the post of Helper with the respondent department. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition while claiming that since 2007 he has not been paid his salary by the respondent-department. The respondents have passed an order dated 12.11.2012 and has relieved the petitioner from respondent-department to join Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Spinning and Ginning Mils Federation Ltd., Hanumangarh. 3. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 12.11.2012 was stayed by this Court on 10.12.2012 and the petitioner is still continuing with the respondent-department. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that since the petitioner has not submitted attendance certificate in the office of respondent, his salary could not be prepared by the respondent-department. 5. It is argued by learned counsel for the respondents that if the petitioner produces his attendance certificate in the office of respondent No.2, the respondent will prepare salary of the petitioner. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is very strange that the respondents are admitted that the petitioner has joined in the office of Executive Engineer, P.H.E.D. Division Hanumangarh on 28.2.2007 and the order dated 12.11.2012 (Annex.5) clearly shows that his deputation was cancelled with the remark that the petitioner is being working with the respondent-department since 2007. The petitioner has attended the office of respondents or not is to be certified by the respondents themselves and in such circumstances asking the petitioner to produce attendance certificate from the office of respondent is not proper. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to verify about the attendance of the petitioner in their office since 28.2.2007 and thereafter to release salary of the petitioner from 28.2.2007 to till date within a period of two months from today. It is also directed that the if the petitioner continues to work in the office of respondent-department in future, the respondents shall pay him his salary month by month.Petition Allowed. *******