Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 527 (JHR)

Amrita Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-03-17

S.N.PATHAK

body2017
ORDER Dr. S.N. Pathak, J. – Heard the parties. 2. Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer to pay the arrears of salary for the period from March, 2004 to December, 2005 with interest. A further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to perform their duties and for treating the petitioners to be in continuous service. Factual Matrix 3. The petitioners were working as Volunteer workers in the office of Additional Chief Medical Officer, Dumka since 1994 and pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon''ble Patna High Court, the petitioners were absorbed in the service by the respondent no.3 vide memo no.124 dated 10.02.2002 till February, 2004. It is the case of the petitioner that they have been allowed to perform their duty till December, 2015 and in this regard concern Incharge, Medical Officer of the concern Primary Centre where petitioners were posted have given Work Experience Certificate in the month of December, 2005. Thereafter, from January, 2006 the respondent authorities without issuing any termination orders prevented the petitioners from entering in the office premises and even not paid the salary for the period March, 2004 to December, 2005. It has been further stated that grievances of the petitioners were neither redressed nor they were allowed to perform their duties and as such the petitioners filed several representations to the concerned respondents during the period 200613 but their representations are still pending and no order has been passed and hence this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Saibal Mitra submits that suffice will it be, if a direction is given to the respondent authorities to take a decision on their representations in respect of non payment of arrears of salary and also regarding allowing them to work on the respective posts. Learned counsel further submits that similarly situated persons approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.3167 of 2015 in which a direction was given vide order dated 15.03.2016 for filing a fresh representation giving details of their claim along with supportive documents and same shall be considered and disposed of by reasoned and speaking order. 5. Ms. Learned counsel further submits that similarly situated persons approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.3167 of 2015 in which a direction was given vide order dated 15.03.2016 for filing a fresh representation giving details of their claim along with supportive documents and same shall be considered and disposed of by reasoned and speaking order. 5. Ms. Richa Sanchita, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that though no counter affidavit has been filed but if a direction is given to that extent regarding disposal of representation, the same can be done within a reasonable period. 6. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that admittedly it is not disputed that the representations submitted by the petitioners have not yet been disposed of by the respondents. In such circumstance, without going into the merits of the case suffice would be if the claim of the petitioners be considered by the respondent at the first instance. 7. As a cumulative effect, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh representation giving all the details regarding their claim answering all the documents required for redressal of their grievances and if such representation is filed, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the respondent no.4 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the representation by reasoned and speaking order. 8. Needless to say if the claim of the petitioners are found to be genuine, the same shall be redressed by the authorities as early as possible within a reasonable period.