Allowed

Shyam Deo Sharma v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC25 Mar 2022WPC/5361/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition asserting that an employee erroneously forced into retirement was not barred by 'no work no pay' principles from claiming salary for the subsequent period where he was prevented from working by the mandatory nature of the prior invalid retirement order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the claim was set aside; the Respondent Bank was directed to make payment of salary for the period from 01.04.2000 to 25.06.2002 with other monetary benefits forthwith.

Shyam Deo Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand And… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5361 of 2008

Shyam Deo Sharma

… Petitioner

-versus-

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The State of Bihar

¶7

Secretary, Bihar Co-operative Land Development Bank, Patna, Bihar.

¶8

Managing Director, Bihar Co-operative Land Development Bank Societies, Budha Marg, Patna-1.

¶9

Registrar, Co-operative Bank Societies, Bihar, Patna.

¶10

Senior Accounts Officer, Land Development Bank, Patna.

¶11

… Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING

¶14

¶15

For the Petitioner : None

¶16

For the Respondents : Mr. Ashish Kumar Shekhar, AC to SC(L&C)-II Mr. Purnendu Sharan, A.C. to G.A. Bihar Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate

¶17

----

¶18

8/ 25.03.2022 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner, but, I have heard the counsel for the State and respondent Bank and have also gone through the entire writ petition.

¶19

After going through the writ petition and hearing the counsel for the respondents, I am of the opinion that this case can be disposed of.

¶20

Petitioner has challenged Annexure 5 at page 27 of the writ petition. By the aforesaid annexure, petitioner’s claim for salary for the period from 01.04.2000 to 25.06.2002 has been denied by the respondents Nos.4 and 5.

¶21

Dispute lies in a very narrow compass. Petitioner was an employee of Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). He was forcefully retired from service with effect from 31^st March, 2000 by invoking Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code, 1952. Said order was challenged by the petitioner before this High Court in C.W.J.C. No.2789 of 2000(R). This Court vide order dated 10.06.2002 allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order of compulsory retirement by holding that the said provision of law which was relied upon by the respondents is not applicable, so far as this petitioner is concerned. The aforesaid order was challenged in letters patent appeal being L.P.A. No.431 of 2002 before this High Court by the Bank, which was also dismissed, whereafter the Bank had preferred a special leave petition being S.L.P.(C) No. 2909 of 2003 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the said special leave petition was also dismissed. Thus, it is an admitted fact that compulsory

¶22

-: 2 :-

¶23

retirement of the petitioner was set aside and the issue attained finality. It is the case of the petitioner that he immediately gave his joining and thereafter he was transferred. It is the case of the petitioner that he is entitled to receive salary for the period he was forcefully retired compulsorily, i.e., 01.04.2000 till 25.06.2002. The petitioner, thereafter prayed for salary for the aforesaid period and approached this High Court by filing W.P.(s) No.7148 of 2006. This Court directed the Managing Director of the Bank to take a decision and pass a reasoned order on the claim. Vide Annexure 5, i.e., impugned order as contained in memo No.3985 dated 31.10.2005, a decision was taken and the claim of the petitioner was rejected. The ground for rejection is that there is financial crunch so far as the Bank is concerned and the period, i.e., 01.04.2000 to 25.06.2002 has been treated as “no work no pay”. Aforesaid order is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶24

Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and the respondentBank admit all the aforesaid facts.

¶25

Counsel for the Bank submits that since the petitioner did not actually work from 01.04.2000 to 25.06.2002, he is not entitled for the salary. He also submits that this writ petition before this High Court is not maintainable.

¶26

So far as maintainability of this writ petition before this Court is concerned, I find that all the previous Writ Petitions, Letters Patent Appeal and other litigations for the root cause of action was filed before this High Court, maintainability of which were never challenged. The order by which the petitioner was compulsorily retired was also set aside by this High Court and the claim for the salary for the said period, i.e., from 01.04.2000 to 25.06.2002 is nothing but a consequential relief by setting aside the subsequent order. Thus, this Court feels that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition.

¶27

So far as treating the period from 01.04.2000 to 25.06.2002 as “no work no pay” is concerned, this Court finds that the petitioner was forced not to work by the respondent Bank during the aforesaid period as he was compulsorily retired on 31.03.2000. This order was challenged before this High Court, which was set aside by allowing the writ petition on 10.06.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner had immediately joined and the petitioner was transferred also. This clearly suggests that concept of “no work no pay” will not be applicable in the facts of this case, as it is the respondents, who did not

¶28

-: 3 :-

¶29

allow the petitioner to work and now the respondents cannot take benefit of their own wrong. Respondents are duty bound to pay the salary to the petitioner for the period from 01.04.2000 to 25.06.2002. Reasons given in the impugned order are bad and cannot be sustained. Further, financial crunch cannot be a ground to withhold legitimate dues of an employee. Impugned order as contained in memo No.3985 dated 31.10.2005 is set aside. Respondent Bank is directed to make payment of salary for the period from 01.04.2000 to 25.06.2002 with other monetary benefits to the petitioner forthwith.

¶30

This writ petition, accordingly, stands allowed.

¶31

(Ananda Sen, J.)

¶32

Kumar/Cp-02

Shyam Deo Sharma v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Deo Sharma v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

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

Mantu Alias Gulam Yasin Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sachin Kumar Alias Sanni Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajay Ravidas Alias Chousath Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramprit Singh And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Vinay Ekka Alias Binay Ekka Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ram Prasad Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.