Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1043 (JHR)

Suresh Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand

2016-07-14

H.C.MISHRA

body2016
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-State. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Jeep Driver in the year 1985. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner along with others were terminated on 18.10.1986. The said order was set aside by the then Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court, in C.W.J.C. No. 322 of 1986 (R), by order dated 25.8.1987, which has been brought on record as Annexure-3 to the writ application. There after the petitioner was reinstated in service and he was performing his duty. Subsequently, the order contained in memo No.257 dated 16.3.2005 was issued by the respondent No.4, Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Koderma, with regard to the appointment of the petitioner and other similarly situated candidates, stating inter alia that the Committee, which had looked into the appointment of the petitioner and other candidates, had found their appointments to be forged and accordingly, payment of salary was stopped and it was directed that no further work shall be taken from the petitioner and other similarly situated candidates. The said order has been brought on record as Annexure-6 to the writ application. The order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 1015 of 2006. It may be stated that in the meantime, the operation of order dated 16.3.2005 contained in Annexure-6 to the writ supplication was stayed and it was directed that those employees, who were actually working, shall be paid their salary. The said order was issued by respondent No. 4, Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Koderma, as contained in Memo No. 893 dated 3.8.2005, and has been brought on record as Annexure-8 to the writ application. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that this order was never served upon the petitioner, nor it was made known to the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner finds force from the fact that W.P.(S) No. 1015 of 2005, which was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.3.2005 as contained in Annexure-6, was disposed of by order dated 12.7.2006, and from perusal of the said order, it is apparent that the order dated 3.8.2005 as contained in Annexure-8 was not even brought to the knowledge of this Court and accordingly, this Court by order dated 12.7.2006 while disposing of the writ petition, had quashed the order dated 16.3.2005 (Annexure-6 to this writ application). Accordingly, the respondents were directed to pay the admitted salary of the petitioner for the period for which he had actually worked. As no payment had been made to the petitioner, the petitioner filed a contempt case, which was registered as Cont. Case (Civil) No.267 of 2007, but in the meantime, some payment was made to the petitioner and this Court by order dated 12.2.2009 dismissed the contempt case stating that there was observation that the salary shall be paid only for the period, the petitioner had actually worked. 4. The petitioner has filed this writ application, being aggrieved by the fact that the petitioner has been deprived from his salary for the period from 5.4.2005 to 5.1.2007 and he has also not been given the consequential benefits. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was prevented by the order dated 16.3.2005 passed by respondent No. 4 from working and only when the writ application, filed by the petitioner against the said order, was disposed of after quashing the said order, the petitioner was allowed to join service and some payment has been made to the petitioner. It is submitted that the order dated 3.8.2005 passed by the respondent No. 4, whereby the earlier order dated 16.3.2005 passed by him was stayed, was never made known to the petitioner, nor it was brought to the knowledge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1015 of 2006. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get his salary for the period from 5.4.2005 to 5.1.2007, during which period, he was illegally kept out of service, and he has been illegally deprived for his salary. 6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has also pointed out from the counter affidavit filed by the State that the petitioner has been paid his salary for the period, he has actually worked. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards the order dated 12.7.2006 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1015 of 2006 (Annexure-7), to show that there was direction of this Court to make the payment of salary for the period the petitioner had actually worked. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that the petitioner has been paid his salary for the period actually worked and the order of this Court has been fully complied with. 7. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that the petitioner has been paid his salary for the period actually worked and the order of this Court has been fully complied with. 7. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that by order dated 16.3.2005 passed by respondent No.4 as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application, the petitioner was deprived from working, as it was stated that no work shall be taken from the petitioner and accordingly, it cannot be said that the petitioner was himself responsible for not working after passing of the order dated 16.3.2005. Though the operation of this order was stayed by the respondent No. 4 by the order contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application, but I find force in submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that this order had never made known to him. Even the order dated 12.7.2006 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1015 of 2006 clearly shows that this order was never brought to the knowledge of this Court, which had compelled this Court to quash the order dated 16.3.2005. Only thereafter the petitioner was allowed to join his service and accordingly, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for not working in the meantime. Accordingly, the stand of the learned counsel for the State that since the petitioner had not actually worked, he is not entitled to his salary, has no leg to stand. In the facts of this case, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is fully entitled to get his salary for the period from 5.4.2005 to 5.1.2007 with all the consequential benefits thereof. 8. For the foregoing discussions, this writ application is allowed and the respondent State is directed to treat the period from 5.4.2005 to 5.1.2007, as the period spent by the petitioner on duty, for all practicable purposes and to make the payment of salary and all other consequential benefits, including the benefits of ACP to the petitioner, counting the said period to be as on duty. Respondent State is directed to implement this order positively within a period of four months from the date of communication / production of a copy of this order. 9. This writ application is accordingly, allowed with the directions as above. Application allowed.