Allowed

MD Afroz Alam v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Sept 2020WPC/50/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an order denying salary during suspension. Court accepted argument of mental disorder justifying delay. Ruling granted salary minus subsistence allowance under Rule 97 of Jharkhand Service Code.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Impugned order dated 28.01.2009 quashed to the extent of directing payment of salary minus subsistence allowance.

MD Afroz Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 50 of 2020

¶3

…..

¶4

Md. Afroz Alam, aged about 61 years, son of late Abdul Aziz, resident of Bhagwanpur, Circle-Jockihat, P.O. Araria, Bairgachi, P.S. Jockihat, District-Araria Bihar. At present Bariatu Basti, P.O. and P.S. Bariatu, District-Ranchi-Jharkhand

¶5

…… Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

The Principal Secretary, the Development of Revenue and Land Reforms, Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶9

The Deputy Secretary, the Development of Revenue and Land Reforms, Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶10

The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla

¶11

The Additional Collector, Gumla

¶12

The Circle Officer, Kamdara, Gumla

¶13

…… Respondents

¶14

-----

¶15

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶16

----- For the Petitioner : Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate For the Respondent-State :- Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, A.C. to A.A.G-II

¶17

…….

¶18

07/Dated:18/09/2020:

¶19

Heard, Mr. K.S. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶20

and Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the respondentState.

¶21

This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

¶22

The petitioner preferred this writ petition for quashing of order dated 28.01.2009 whereby punishment of Sensor and salary of suspension period was directed not to pay except subsistence allowance.

¶23

Mr. K.S. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶24

that petitioner was appointed on 16.09.1991 as Assistant Consolidation Officer. A departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner and the petitioner was suspended without any show-cause. He submits that order of warning and non-payment of salary during the suspension period has been issued. He submits that the enquiry officer also exonerated the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is suffering from mental disorder since last ten years which has been considered by the enquiry officer on the basis of medical certificates that petitioner was suffering from that problem. He submits that petitioner has not been able to move his case earlier as he has been suffering from mental dis-order.

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the petitioner was given full opportunity and thereafter order has been passed. He submits that only warning has been issued against the petitioner and no salary for the suspension period in view of the fact that the petitioner was found to be guilty. He submits that the petitioner has approached this Court after ten years.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the enquiry report which indicates that in the enquiry report the enquiry officer opined that the medical certificate of the petitioner suggests that the petitioner is suffering from mental disorder. Enquiry officer also opined that the show-cause of the

¶27

petitioner can be accepted and the petitioner has been exonerated. On the ground of laches taken by the learned counsel for the respondentState, is not accepted by the Court in view of the fact that there is no right accrued to other persons for the period of suspension and in view of Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code, the petitioner shall be entitled for the salary minus subsistence allowance during the pendency of suspension. Accordingly, impugned order dated 28.01.2009 is quashed to the extent for payment of salary minus subsistence allowance to the petitioner.

¶28

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.

¶29

Satyarthi

MD Afroz Alam v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Afroz Alam v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Kumar Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nandan Kumar Mehta Alias Nand Kumar Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Kumar Singh Alias Major Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sudhir Kumar Sinha Vs Shri Indu Shekhar Chaturvedi the Commissioner Cum Secretary Environment and Forest Deptt

Sampad Kumar Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

C S Kaveri Vs the State of Jharkhand