Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1527 (JHR)

Kishori Prasad Ray v. State of Jharkhand

2016-11-11

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2016
Order : Claim of the petitioner is for payment of salary for the period under suspension, that is, between 01.07.1996 to 10.05.2005, alongwith other consequential benefits. 2. Heard. 3. The petitioner, who was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher, was implicated in Deori P.S. Case No. 55 of 1996 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 307, 447 and 302 r/w Section 34 I.P.C. He was taken in judicial custody and consequently, he was placed under suspension vide order contained in Memo dated 15.10.1996. He was convicted in the criminal case vide judgment and order dated 30.06.1998, however, Criminal Appeal No. 173 of 1998 (R) was allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 18.03.2004. Consequently, suspension of the petitioner was revoked on 10.05.2005. The petitioner asserts that he made representations for payments of full salary and allowances for the aforesaid period of suspension, however, no decision was taken by the respondents. Compelled, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. In view of the statement made in the counter affidavit that an order has been passed for payment of salary to the petitioner for the period under suspension, that is, from 01.07.1996 to 10.05.2005, District Superintendent of Education, Giridih was directed to file his affidavit verifying whether a decision has been taken for payment of salary for the aforesaid period to the petitioner or not. In compliance of order dated 27.10.2016, a supplementary counter affidavit dated 10.11.2016 has been tendered in the Court. In the affidavit, it is stated that for the dues pertaining to Bihar letter dated 02.11.2016 has been written by the respondent no. 4 to the Director, Primary Education for allotment of Rs.2,65,699/. A stand has been taken by the respondents that for payment of full salary etc. for the period of suspension prior to bifurcation of the State, State of Jharkhand is not liable. 5. Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 provides that when a dismissed, removed or suspended government servant is reinstated, the authority competent to order reinstatement shall pass a specific order, whether or not pay and allowance shall be paid to the government servant for the period of his absence from duty and whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. In the present proceeding, no such order has been produced on record. In the present proceeding, no such order has been produced on record. The petitioner has not pleaded the grounds for payment of full salary and allowance for the period under suspension. The petitioner has now superannuated from service. 6. In the aforesaid facts, without commenting upon the supplementary counter affidavit dated 10.11.2016, I am of the opinion that no direction can be issued for payment of salary and allowances to the petitioner for the period between 01.07.1996 to 10.05.2005. The writ petition stands dismissed, at this stage. However, it is left open to the petitioner to approach the competent authority for an order under Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001.