Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 963 (JHR)

Magdali Xess v. State of Jharkhand

2013-08-13

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ application for payment of salary for the period from June 1994 to June, 1997 and thereafter from August, 1997 till the date of termination of her service i.e. on 13th November, 2000. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that three Assistant Teachers including the petitioner were terminated from service vide order passed on 30th November, 2000. Two of them had also approached this Court against the order of termination, namely, Kalpana Kumari in W.P.(S) No. 5510 of 2003 and Binco Eren Bara in W.P.(S) No. 7747 of 2006. Learned Single Judge, however, refused to interfere in the order of termination on account of the fact that the appointment of the petitioner had been made by authority who was not competent to do so. He submits that by the judgments rendered in the aforesaid two cases dated 18th November, 2003 and 28th February, 2007, it was observed that the petitioner will be entitled to get salary till the date she worked as a teacher in the school. The respondents, therefore, were directed to release the amount of salary if not already paid to the said petitioners' within a stipulated period. 4. The petitioner thereafter has approached this Court in the present case for salary of the aforesaid period during which she has worked before her termination. According to the petitioner at para 19 of the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents they have categorically state that her salary was stopped from June, 1994 till the date of her termination on coming to know that her appointment was irregular and not made by any competent authority. In the wake of such admission on the part of the respondents the petitioner's salary for the aforesaid period was directed not to be released. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondents-State however submits that the question relating to the release of salary depends upon actual discharge of duty by the petitioner in the aforesaid period on verification of records. In such circumstances, the petitioner may approach the concerned respondent authority for the said relief which may be considered in accordance with law and on proper verification of her service records. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. In such circumstances, the petitioner may approach the concerned respondent authority for the said relief which may be considered in accordance with law and on proper verification of her service records. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. The name of the petitioner also occurs in one of the judgments dated 28th February, 2007 rendered in W.P.(S) No. 7747 of 2006 along with two other persons, namely, Binko Eren Bara and Kumari Kalpana who were terminated by the order dated 13th November, 2000 on the ground that the appointment was not made by competent authority. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge in line with the earlier judgment in the case of Kumari Kalpana rendered in W.P.(S) No. 5510 of 2003 also observed that the said petitioner will be entitled to get salary as granted in the earlier writ application of Kumari Kalpana and accordingly such direction was made applicable to the said petitioner also. 7. In the present case statements made in para 19 of the counter affidavit shows that the salary of the petitioner was stopped from June, 1994 after realizing that her appointment had been made in a irregular manner. However, it is the claim of the petitioner that she has worked on the post of teacher in the school in question till she was terminated on 30th November, 2000. 8. In view of the aforesaid factual position, the writ petition is disposed of by allowing the petitioner to approach the respondent no.3, Director (Primary Education), Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi, for redressal of the aforesaid grievance with a fresh representation together with all supporting facts and documents and the judgments which she seeks to rely as also the copy of the counter affidavit filed in the present case within a period of 3 weeks. On receipt of such representation, the respondent no.3, Director (Primary Education), Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi after proper verification of record, pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law in respect of payment of salary for the period June 1994 to June, 1997 and thereafter from August, 1997 till 13th November, 2000, as claimed by her within a period of 12 weeks thereafter, which shall also be communicated to the petitioner. 9. 9. Needless to say that If the claim of the petitioner is found to be legally admissible and she has been found to have actually discharged her duty, the payment in lieu thereof shall be paid within a period of 8 weeks thereafter. 10. Let it made clear that observation made hereinabove shall not be treated as any comments on the merits of the petitioner's case. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid term. Petition disposed of.