Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1836 (RAJ)

Pankaj Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2016-12-16

SANGEET LODHA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking directions to the respondents to release his due salary with interest thereon @ 18%. 2. The relevant facts in nutshell are: The petitioner working on the post of Instructor in ITI College, Bikaner was posted on deputation in the office of District Election Officer, Bikaner as Data Entry Operator vide order dated 24.12.2010 issued by the Deputy District Election Officer, Bikaner pursuant to the instructions alleged to have been issued by Department of Election. In compliance of the order issued as aforesaid, vide order dated 30.12.10 issued by the Principal, ITI, Bikaner, the petitioner was relieved to join duties in the office of the District Election Officer, Bikaner. Vide order dated 1.6.11 issued by Principal, ITI, Bikaner, the petitioner was transferred to ITI, Ratangarh, but he was not relieved by the District Election Officer, Bikaner, for joining duties at the transferred place. The petitioner continued to work at the District Election Office, Bikaner. The petitioner was again transferred to ITI, Bikaner vide order dated 17.7.2013, where on being relieved, he joined duties on 14.8.13. 3. Precisely, the grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been paid his salary since June 2011 till joining of the duties at ITI, Bikaner pursuant to order dated 17.7.13. That apart, after joining the duties on 14.8.13 at ITI, Bikaner, he is being paid same salary which he was drawing in the month of June 2011. The benefits of annual grade increments, fixation and revision of pay have not been extended to him. The petitioner served the respondents with a notice for demand of justice, but to no avail. Hence this petition. 4. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents taking the stand that vide order dated 30.12.10, the petitioner was transferred from ITI, Bikaner to ITI, Ratangarh and therefore, he was not entitled to remain on deputation for a long time on election duty. It is submitted that despite being requested time and again, the District Collector, Bikaner did not relieve the petitioner. It is submitted that when the petitioner was not relieved, a request was made to the Principal Secretary, who in its turn, vide letter dated 1.8.13 asked the District Collector, to relieve the petitioner. It is submitted that despite being requested time and again, the District Collector, Bikaner did not relieve the petitioner. It is submitted that when the petitioner was not relieved, a request was made to the Principal Secretary, who in its turn, vide letter dated 1.8.13 asked the District Collector, to relieve the petitioner. It is not disputed that on being relieved from the office of the District Election Officer, the petitioner has already joined his duties at ITI, Bikaner on 14.8.13. 5. The case set out by the respondents is that the petitioner having transferred to ITI, Ratangarh, his salary was to be drawn from ITI, Ratangarh, but since the petitioner remained absent from duty and remained on deputation in the office of the District Collector, Bikaner, salary could not be paid to the petitioner. It is submitted that on account of post of Instructor being vacant, the audit objection was also raised. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the petitioner was posted on deputation as Data Entry Operator in the office of the District Election Officer, Bikaner and accordingly, he joined duties on the said post. Learned counsel submitted that it is also not in dispute that the petitioner was continuously discharging his duties in the Office of the District Election Officer and he was not relieved inasmuch as he was performing the duties of verification of the Electronic Voting Machine (EVM). Learned counsel submitted that it is also an admitted fact that on being relieved, the petitioner immediately joined duties at ITI, Bikaner on 14.8.13. Learned counsel urged that the petitioner cannot be penalized for no fault on his part and the respondents are guilty of depriving from his salary for no justifiable reasons and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed as prayed for. 7. On the other hand, the Additional Government Counsel reiterating the stand taken in the reply to the writ petition, submitted that the petitioner could not have been continued on deputation for such a long period. Learned Additional Government Counsel would submit that since the petitioner failed to join the duties at ITI, Ratangarh pursuant to the transfer order issued, the Directorate, Technical Education cannot be held liable to make payment of salary to the petitioner for the disputed period. Learned Additional Government Counsel would submit that since the petitioner failed to join the duties at ITI, Ratangarh pursuant to the transfer order issued, the Directorate, Technical Education cannot be held liable to make payment of salary to the petitioner for the disputed period. It is submitted that it was the moral duty of the petitioner to discharge his obligation to his parent department, but just to stay at Bikaner, the petitioner continued to remain on deputation on election duty in the office of the Collector, Bikaner for a period of two years and eight months. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Indisputably, the petitioner is employed in the Department of Technical Education, Government of Rajasthan and was posted on deputation in the District Election Office as Data Entry Operator and was performing the function of verification of EVM. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was not relieved and repatriated to his parent department by the District Election Officer inasmuch as, the work of verification of EVM machine was in progress. It is really strange that in the reply filed, the respondents have levelled allegation against the District Collector, Bikaner that despite request being made, he did not relieve the petitioner to join duties in his parent department. 10. In any case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had continuously discharged the duties in the Office of the District Election Officer till he was relieved to join duties at ITI, Bikaner on 14.8.13 and therefore, his entitlement for salary for the period he has worked in the office of the District Election Officer, cannot be disputed. It is for the State Government to decide that the petitioner is required to be paid the salary by which department either by the Department of Technical Education or the District Election Officer but in either case, the salary has to go out of the funds of the State. It is really unfortunate that the officers of the State acting in most irresponsible manner instead of accepting the legitimate claim of the petitioner and pay him the due salary have chosen to justify their action in denying the salary to the petitioner taking the stand that he could not have continued on deputation for such a long period. It is really unfortunate that the officers of the State acting in most irresponsible manner instead of accepting the legitimate claim of the petitioner and pay him the due salary have chosen to justify their action in denying the salary to the petitioner taking the stand that he could not have continued on deputation for such a long period. If despite request being made by the Directorate, Technical Education, if the District Collector, Bikaner did not relieve the petitioner, then he cannot be penalized for no fault on his part. To say the least, the action of the respondents in denying salary to the petitioner and not making fixation of his salary since June 2011 is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. Obviously, on account of non payment of due salary and denial of benefits of fixation for all these years, the petitioner stands deprived of beneficial use of his money and therefore, he is entitled for the interest on the arrear of salary. 11. The respondents have deprived the petitioner from his salary without any justifiable reason and even did not respond to the notice for demand of justice and further, instead of accepting his legitimate claim, defended the writ petition taking the stand in most irresponsible manner and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensatory costs. 12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to make fixation of the petitioner's pay and release the amount of due salary to the petitioner with interest @ 9% from the date the salary become due till the actual payment thereof within a period of one month. If the respondents fail to make the payment within the stipulated period, the amount due shall carry interest @ 12%. The petitioner shall be entitled for costs quantified at Rs. 5000/-.