Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2515 (JHR)

Sabre Ayub Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2018-11-22

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
JUDGMENT : S.N. PATHAK, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the Respondents to allow him to continue on the post of Para Teacher in Utkramit Madhya Vidyalay, Raghuniyadih, Koderma. Further prayer has been made to allow the petitioner to mark his presence in the Attendance Register maintained by the said School. It has also been prayed to pay the salary of the period for which the petitioner was not allowed to mark his presence in the Attendance Register. 3. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. Petitioner was appointed as Para Teacher in the Utkramit Madhya Vidyalay, Raghuniyadih, Koderma in the year 2003. It is the case of the petitioner that on 30.11.2015, vide letter No. 1187, issued under the signature of respondent No. 2, the petitioner along with two other Para Teachers were issued show-cause notice for not submitting the Xerox copy of the certificates for verification, which was asked to be submitted vide letter No. SSA/12/131/214 dated 09.07.2015 and letter No. 887 dated 02.09.2015. In pursuant to the show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted the Xerox copy of the required certificates for verification along with show-cause reply, stating therein that because of some unavoidable reasons, he could not submit the certificates for verification in time. The petitioner’s show-cause reply was accepted with a warning not to repeat the mistake in future. It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter when he went to school, he was stopped from marking his presence in the attendance register by the respondent No. 4, on the ground that he has received order from higher authorities not to allow the petitioner to continue in the services. When the petitioner was stopped from marking his presence in the Attendance Register, he represented before the respondent No. 3 on 06.01.2016, stating therein regarding problems which he faced and also bringing to the knowledge of the aforesaid authorities that he was restrained from marking his presence in the Attendance Register by the respondent No. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner sought information under Right to Information Act, 2005, through his Advocate but no information was supplied to him. Thereafter, the petitioner sought information under Right to Information Act, 2005, through his Advocate but no information was supplied to him. The matter was brought to the knowledge of the District Education Officer and then, he ordered for supplying the information but inspite of the same, the petitioner has not received any information from the respondent-authorities. The petitioner was prevented from marking his presence in the Attendance Register of the said School and as such, this case has been preferred. 4. Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that petitioner was appointed as Para Teacher as per the Rules. He continued in the services but only on the ground that he did not submit the required certificates for verification on time, though he submitted the same later on, he was prevented from marking his presence in the Attendance Register on the pretext that there was an oral order from the higher authorities not to allow the petitioner to mark his presence in the Attendance Register, though the said order was never handed over to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that this shows callous approach of the respondent-authorities preventing poor Para Teacher from getting his salary on the pretext of not marking his attendance in the Attendance Register, which is in complete violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mrs. Chaitali Ch. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in view of the directions of this Hon’ble Court, the Respondents have considered the case of the petitioner and already a direction has been given to the respondent No. 4 to allow the petitioner to mark his attendance in the Attendance Register and not to prevent him from continuing in the services as Para Teacher. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court towards para-15 of the Counter-Affidavit and submits that vide letter date 17.11.2018, already an intimation has been given to the respondent No. 4 in this regard. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. However, in pursuant to the direction of this Court, the respondent-authorities have already considered the grievances of the petitioner and it has been redressed and already a direction has been issued to the respondent No. 4 to allow the petitioner to mark his presence in the Attendance Register and not to prevent him from continuing in the services as Para Teacher in the said School. As such, the petitioner is directed to report to the respondent No. 4 on 26.11.2018 along with a copy of the letter dated 17.11.2018 and upon his reporting, the respondent No. 4 shall allow the petitioner to continue in the services of the said school and also allow him to mark his presence in the Attendance Register from the date of joining to the post of Para Teacher in the said School. Since the petitioner has also claimed the salary of the period for which he has not been allowed to mark his presence in the Attendance Register, as nowhere it has been mentioned by the respondents that ever any order was issued regarding preventing the petitioner from continuing in the said School and the petitioner was prevented from marking his presence in the Attendance Register at the behest of the respondent No. 4, he is entitled for salary of the said period for which he was prevented from marking his presence in the Attendance Register, if the salary of the petitioner has not been paid till date. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation for consideration of his case regarding payment of salary of the period for which he was not allowed to marks his presence in the Attendance register, within a period of two weeks from today and upon receipt of the same, the respondents shall consider the same and pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter, extending the benefits as prayed for by him. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.