Disposed

Rajendra Prasad Singh v. Human Resources Department

Jharkhand HC9 Oct 2018WPC/7185/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner claimed unpaid salary due to an unwarranted dispute. Court noted a recent order offered a solution and granted the petitioner three weeks to submit fresh representations. Court directed authorities to decide within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted three weeks to submit fresh representations; District Superintendent of Education directed to pass a reasoned order within six weeks thereafter.

Rajendra Prasad Singh Vs Human Resources… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S) No. 7185 of 2017

¶4

Rajendra Prasad Singh

¶5

… …. Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Project Bhawan, hatia, Ranchi

¶8

Director, Secondary Education, human Resources Development Department, Project Bhawan, Hatia, Ranchi ….

¶9

Regional Deputy Director of Education, Palamau Division, Kotwali, Medini nagar, Palamau

¶10

The District Education Officer, Garhwa

¶11

The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa

¶12

… … Respondents

¶13

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sadab Bin Haque, AC to GP-I

¶15

05/ 09.10.2018 The petitioner has approached this court for a direction upon the respondents specially to the respondent No.4 to release the salary of the petitioner for the period from 01.06.2011 to 10.06.2012 as the same has not been paid after the issuance of letters by the respondent No.4 in the years, 2012 & 2014.

¶16

The fact of the case lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher at Shahideo high School, Kharaundha, Garhwa and accordingly, joined on 12.10.1987 and worked there till his transfer to Government +2 High School, Ranka, Garhwa on 11.06.2012. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has worked to full satisfaction of the respondents, it was only because of the dispute raised by one Sita Ram Dubey, a teacher of the same school with respect to Incharge Headmaster, the petitioner was not allowed to make attendance in the said school and as such, a complaint was lodged by the instance of Sitaram Dubey by a different person before the Hon'ble Lokayukt. On receipt of such complaint, a report was called for by the Hon'ble Lokayukt from the Regional Deputy Director, Palamau and a detailed report was furnished by the District Superintendent of Education was submitted before the Hon'ble Lokayukt. Upon consideration of the same, the Hon'ble Lokayukt dropped the complaint filed at the instance of said Sita Ram Dubey.

¶17

It is specific case of the petitioner that in spite of compliant being dropped by the Hon'ble Lokayukt, the petitioner has been deprived from the salary for the period of 01.06.2011 to 10.06.2012, though the petitioner had made representation before the respondents for consideration of his case for making payment of salary of the said period. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner

¶18

¶19

has been compelled to knock the door of this Court for redressal of his grievances.

¶20

Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is entitled for the salary for the period 01.06.2011 to 10.06.2012 as he has worked for that period and has marked his attendance in different register, which shows that he was very much present during the said period. Learned counsel further argues that the complaint before the Hon'ble Lokayukt was dropped in view of report submitted by the District Superintendent of Education. The District Superintendent of Education has opined that petitioner was very much present during the said period in the school, but the same has not been considered by the Higher Authorities and no payment has been made till date. Learned counsel further submits that a direction may be given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for payment of salary for the aforesaid period.

¶21

Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Sadab Bin Haque, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner is not entitled for salary for the said period as there was a dispute whether he has worked or not during the said period. Learned counsel for the respondents draws the attention of the Court towards Annexure-A of the counter-affidavit and submits that vide order dated 08.05.2018, the District Superintendent of Education, Garhwa has passed an order for payment of salary for 249 days. However, for the period of dispute, which comes to 127 days, a lenient view has been taken by the respondents-authorities and an application has been asked from the present petitioner for passing an order regarding the disputed period and if possible treating the said period as earned leave, but till date no application has been preferred by the present petitioner.

¶22

Be that as it may, having gone through the submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that already the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner and the respondents have passed an order dated 08.05.2018, considering the case of the petitioner for payment of the salary of 249 days. Regarding rest 127 days which is in dispute, an order has been passed that if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation or make an application, the period of 127 days shall be treated as a period of earned leave. The petitioner instead of making an application or preferring any representation has rushed to this Court. Since this order has been brought on record after filing of this writ petition, I give one more opportunity to the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation before the respondents raising all the grievances and bringing on record the document on which the petitioner is claiming to have worked and may bring any other other document upon which he is relying, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation, the respondent-DSE shall pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law, with a copy to the petitioners, within a period of six weeks thereafter.

¶23

¶24

Needless to say that if the petitioner is entitled for the salary of the said period as claimed, the same shall be extended to him, within a further period of

¶25

three weeks.

¶26

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)

¶27

punit/

Rajendra Prasad Singh v. Human Resources Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prasad Singh v. Human Resources Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mithlesh Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Bageshwar Pathak And Ors. Vs Rural Dev Dept

Jainendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand Thr the Secretary Pr Secretary Personnel Administrative Reforms

Anand Kumar Mahto And Ors. Vs State Of Jharkhand Through Secretary Home Jail And Disaster Management And Ors.

Ravi Kumar Vs Personnel And Adminis Reform

Altaf Anwar Ansari And Ors. Vs Education