Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2088 (JHR)

Ravindra Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-12-04

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2017
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. – In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has prayed for direction upon the respondents for payment of honorarium from September, 2007 to February, 2009. 2. The brief facts as averred in the writ application is that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Computer Operator on contractual basis for the period of one year, vide memo No. 295 II, dated 21.08.2006 and joined the said post on 1st September, 2006 and since then the petitioner worked sincerely upto February, 2010 with utmost sincerity. It has been submitted that the petitioner was paid his honorarium upto August, 2007 and was allowed to work since February, 2010 but the payment of honorarium for the said period was not given to him though, the Circle Officer, Patan, Palamu (respondent no. 4) requested the Additional Collector, Palamu at Medininagar for extension of the period of service of the petitioner vide letter dated 08.07.2008 as per Annexure-4 to the writ application. 3. Mr. Kishor Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, during course of argument, has submitted that on perusal of Annexures 4 to 6 of the writ application would suggest that the petitioner even after expiry of the contractual period has rendered services as Computer Operator for the period from September, 2007 to February, 2010. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in not paying the admissible honorarium for the period in question, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating therein that the appointment of the petitioner was for a period of one year, which expired on 31st August, 2007 and thereafter, he did not work, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to any honorarium for any period thereafter. It has further been submitted in the counter-affidavit that the appointment of the petitioner expired after one year in the month of August, 2007. Thereafter, he did not discharge the duties of Computer Operator, therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner for payment of honorarium for the period in question is nothing but blatant falsehood. Further, it has been submitted in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner removed computer for repairing and yet he has not returned the same despite issuance of letter dated 17.09.2008. 5. Mr. Further, it has been submitted in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner removed computer for repairing and yet he has not returned the same despite issuance of letter dated 17.09.2008. 5. Mr. Arbind Kumar, learned J.C. to G.P.II for the respondents-State by reiterating the submissions made in the counter-affidavit assiduously submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the honorarium for the period, he has not discharged his duties. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and also on perusal of the records, this Court is not inclined to accede the prayer of the petitioner, on the ground that the contractual appointment of the petitioner as Computer Operator came to an end after expiry of one year on 31.08.2007. There has been no further extension of appointment of the petitioner on contractual basis. 7. In that view of the matter, petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.