Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 621 (JHR)

Mona Murmu v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-03-15

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
ORDER S.N. Pathak, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent-State. 2. The instant writ application has been filed with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to pay the arrears of difference of salary for the period from 01.01.1971 to 31.03.1973 with interest which was payable to the concerned employees on the date of retirement but even after several years of retirement, the same has not been paid. 3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case is that the petitioner No. 1 was working as Assistant Teacher and after attaining the age of superannuation, retired as Headmaster of Middle School Bara Kadal, Seraikella-Kharsawan. Petitioner No. 2 was working as Assistant Teacher and after attaining the age of superannuation, retired as Headmaster of Middle School Kutung, Seraikella-Kharsawan. Petitioner No. 3 was working as Assistant Teacher and after attaining the age of superannuation, retired from the same post from Primary School Shobhapur, Seraikella-Kharsawan. Petitioner No. 4 was working as Assistant Teacher and after attaining the age of superannuation, retired from the same post from Middle School Kutung, Seraikella-Kharsawan. Petitioner No. 5 was working as Assistant Teacher and after attaining the age of superannuation, retired as Headmaster of Middle School Poradiha, Seraikella-Kharsawan. Petitioner No. 6 was working as Assistant Teacher and after attaining the age of superannuation retired from the same post from Middle School Juri, East-Singhbhum. It is the case of the petitioners that similarly situated teachers of different schools got less salary for the period 01.01.1971 to March, 1973 and in pursuance to the Government Notification, an arrangement was made by which difference of saiary for the aforesaid period which was approved, was to be deposited in the GPF Account of the Teachers by the District Superintendent of Education. The District Superintendent of Education has calculated the arrears of difference of salary, which was required to be deposited in the GPF Account vide Calculation Sheet prepared in the year 1976, but the same was not deposited in the GPF Accounts of the petitioners. The District Superintendent of Education has calculated the arrears of difference of salary, which was required to be deposited in the GPF Account vide Calculation Sheet prepared in the year 1976, but the same was not deposited in the GPF Accounts of the petitioners. Thereafter, vide letter No. 4835 dated 30.09.1978, a direction was issued by the then Special Secretary, Education Department, Govt, of Bihar to pay the salary for the aforesaid period immediately to the concerned Teachers but inspite of the specific direction contained in the aforesaid Government Notification, the District Superintendent of Education did not release the amounts for payment to the petitioners though they have retired long back. It is the specific case of the petitioner that similarly situated persons moved before this Hon''ble Court in different writ petitions, being W.P.(S). No. 3329 of 2008 and other analogous cases, which were disposed of on 04.03.2009, with a direction to the District Superintendent of Education to consider the claim of the petitioners, within six weeks and direction has also been given to pay the legally payable amount within the said period. Thereafter, the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 496 of 2010 had also directed the respondent-authorities to pay the amount which has been deposited in the GPF Accounts, which also carries the interest, taking into account the order passed by the Division Bench in case of Hare Ram Pandey v. State Jharkhand in LPA No. 651 of 2002, in which the Hon''ble Division Bench has observed that "it was the duty of the State to pay the interest and because of the default committed by the State, the employee cannot be made to suffer". It is the further case of the petitioners that as the petitioners of those writ, who are also similarly situat d, have received the arrears of salary with interest, the present petitioners are also entitled for the same but though the present petitioners represented times and again before the respondent-authorities, no heed was paid to the representation of the petitioners and no orders have been passed regarding payment of their difference of salary for the period from 01.01.1971 to 31.03.1973 with interest. Hence, the petitioners have knocked the door of this Hon''ble Court for redressal of their grievances. 4. Mr. Hence, the petitioners have knocked the door of this Hon''ble Court for redressal of their grievances. 4. Mr. A.K. Mahato, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, strenuously urges that in view of the several orders passed by this Court and specific order passed in Hare Ram Pandey''s case, the petitioners are entitled for difference of salary along with interest and hence, a direction be given to the respondents to consider the same and if the petitioners are entitled, the amount should be released immediately and forthwith. 5. Per contra no counter-affidavit has been filed. Ms. Sunita Kumari, learned AC to SC (L&C) appearing for the respondents, vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and argues that the petitioners have approached this Court after a long delay and hence, this case is not a fit case for consideration. However, she fairly submits that if the petitioners file a fresh representation, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and in view of the earlier orders passed by this Hon''ble Court. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that admittedly the petitioners have approached this Court after a long delay but at the same time several orders have been passed by this Hon''ble Court particularly in LPA No. 496 of 2010 relying on the judgment of Hare Ram Pandey''s case and has directed the respondent-State to consider the cases of the petitioners and to release the entire amount which has been deposited in the GPF Account of the State Govt. 7. As the State is not at loss while disbursing the amount, the same benefit shall be extended to the present petitioners also. Needless to say that if the petitioners files a fresh representation annexing all the documents on which they want to rely, a reasoned order in accordance with law shall be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if the petitioners are entitled for the same, the same benefits shall be extended to them within a further period of three weeks. 8. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.