Remanded

Ramjee Paswan v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Jun 2022WPC/7115/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order denying back wages to a dismissed constable. The court held that grounds like family financial help and sporadic bank entries could not override an enquiry report finding no gainful employment. The matter was remitted for a fresh order within three months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 22.10.2019 is set aside; the matter is remitted to the Respondent No. 3 to pass a fresh order on the question of back wages within three months.

Ramjee Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 7115 of 2019

¶3

Ramjee Paswan, aged about 52 years, son of Late Chandra Deep Paswan, resident of village Khatkhori, P.O. Huhasganj, P.S. Mukhdumpur, District Jahanabad, Bihar at present Police No. 18, Samadeshak, E-Company, Jharkhand Armed Police-03, Pirtand, P.O. and P.S. Pirtand, District Giridih, Jharkhand … … Petitioner Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

The Director General of Police-cum-I.G. Jharkhand at Ranchi Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi

¶6

The Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police (JAP)-03, Govindpur, P.O. and P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand

¶7

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, (JAP) Jharkhand, Ranchi at HEC Building Sector-2, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi

¶8

The Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police (JAP) at Nepal House, Raja Rani Kothi, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand … … Respondents Respondents

¶9

… … Respondents Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶12

¶13

For the Petitioner : Mr. Satish Prasad, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Mihir Kunal Ekka, A.C. to S.C. III

¶14

¶15

9 /15.06.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

2. This writ petition has been filed seeking two reliefs as follows:

¶17

i. for quashing of Annexure-5 dated 22.10.2019 issued by Respondent No. 3 by which the petitioner has been denied payment of back wages though the petitioner was never in gainful employment during relevant period from 27.11.1998 to 03.10.2013 (Dismissal to reinstatement)

¶18

ii. the petitioner is also aggrieved by the fact that at present the petitioner is being paid gross pay of Rs. 33,554/whereas his batch mate police constable are getting gross pay of Rs. 53,600/-.

¶19

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 7037 of 2005 against the punishment of dismissal from service. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 14.08.2013 by recording a finding that penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the petitioner was excessive and disproportionate to the charges found proved during departmental proceeding and the matter was also remanded back to the disciplinary authority to take a fresh decision on the question of quantum of punishment.

¶20

¶21

4. The learned counsel submits that ultimately vide memo No. 2361 dated 04.10.2013, inter alia, punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with non-cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner and nothing more. Apart from the amount already paid and the payable for the period of suspension i.e. 02.12.1996 to 26.11.1998 the said period was to be adjusted with half pay leave and so far as the period from 27.11.1998 to 03.10.2013 is concerned, the wages were refused on account of “no work no pay” and the period was to be adjusted against the extraordinary leave.

¶22

5. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner challenged the order of punishment in W.P (S) No. 3328 of 2017 which was dismissed. The petitioner filed appeal being LP.A. No. 72 of 2018 which was disposed of vide order dated 19.11.2018 (Annexure-1). The appeal was disposed of in the following terms: -

¶23

Para-4 “We, are however of the view that a further opportunity may be given to the appellant-writ petitioner to establish whether he was employed or not during the period of his dismissal. We accept the submission of the State that it was the duty of the writ petitioner to bring on record the said fact at the time of hearing before departmental authorities. But considering the fact that the writ petitioner is a Constable and in the writ petition in paragraph no. 18 itself he pleaded that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere during the relevant period, we want a further opportunity to be given to him to establish his employment status during the period he remained under order of dismissal. The State has also not come forward with a specific case that the appellant writ petitioner was gainfully employed during the subject period. The writ petitioner shall make a substantive representation on this count. Such representation again must be made within a period of 8 weeks from date. The departmental authority shall complete the exercise within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receiving such representation. Depending on the finding of the departmental authority on the point of his employment status, appropriate order shall be passed on the question of back wages by the said authority within the aforesaid time frame. The judgment of the learned First Court stands modified to the above extent.”

¶24

6. The learned counsel submits that LP.A. No. 72 of 2018 was disposed of by giving further opportunity to the writ petitioner to establish whether he was employed or not during the period of his dismissal from service. It was directed that the writ petitioner shall make a substantive representation in connection with the employment or otherwise during the aforesaid period and the respondent authority was directed to complete the exercise within a period of 12 weeks and

¶25

¶26

depending upon the finding of the departmental authority on the point of his employment status, appropriate order was directed to be passed on the question of back wages by the said authority within the aforesaid time.

¶27

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order passed in LP.A. No. 72 of 2018 , the petitioner filed a detailed representation clearly stating that he was not gainfully employed and consequently an enquiry was set up and the enquiry report is contained at Annexure-4 of the present writ petition wherein a finding was recorded after examining the bank account pass book of the petitioner and other materials that the petitioner was not gainfully employed during the period of his dismissal. The learned counsel further submits that inspite of aforesaid enquiry report, the respondent authority passed the impugned order as contained in Annexure-5 wherein the respondent authority refused the grant wages to the petitioner for the period from 27.11.1998 to 03.10.2013 on the ground that -

¶28

(i) During the enquiry it was found that the petitioner has been taking financial help from his sister

¶29

(ii) The wife of the petitioner is working in a school and is engaged in cooking food in the school and is having monthly wages.

¶30

(iii)Even the sarpanch of the village had stated that the wife of the petitioner is gainfully employed

¶31

(iv) The passbook of the petitioner revealed that he has been receiving amount in the account and there has been entries of debit and credit.

¶32

8. On 19.04.2022, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the impugned order, back wages has been denied by referring to bank pass book of the petitioner but the order does not even reflect the amount of credit and debit entry made in the pass book of the petitioner and in spite of enquiry having been held in favour of the petitioner. It was submitted that the impugned order refusing to give the differential wages to the petitioner is perverse. This court observed that a counter affidavit was already filed by the respondents, but a copy of the bank pass book which was available in the records could be filed before this court for consideration which will reflect the debit and credit entries in the bank account of the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondents were directed to file supplementary counter affidavit bringing on record a copy of the bank

¶33

¶34

pass book of the petitioner which was considered while passing the impugned order. Consequently, the respondents have filed the supplementary counter affidavit bringing on record the pass book of the petitioner which was considered to hold that the there was debit and credit entry in the account and therefore the petitioner was gainfully employed. A response to that supplementary affidavit also been filed by the petitioner by way of rejoinder.

¶35

9. During the course of argument, it transpired that as per supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondents, copies of three pass books have been brought on record and out of them two pass books do not relate to the period during which the petitioner remained dismissed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so far as pass book contained at page 8 of the supplementary counter affidavit is concerned, there are some entries relating to 2001 and thereafter which are a few in number and megre amount in quantum relating to the entire period from 27.11.1998 to 03.10.2013. However, during the course of arguments, it has been found that there are certain entries in connection with transfer of interest in the account and there has been no consistent entry to show that any wages was being paid to the petitioner. As per the rejoinder, the total credit entry during the period from 27.11.1998 to 03.10.2013 has been for an amount of Rs. 35,798/- and the total debit entry on a few dates has been Rs. 24,700/- and total interest in deposit has been Rs. 1879/-. The petitioner has specifically mentioned that the two bank pass books which has been considered by the respondents and annexed with the supplementary counter affidavit were opened after reinstatement of the petitioner on 04.10.2013 and accordingly the same could not have been considered by the respondents to find out as to petitioner was gainfully employed during the aforesaid period from 27.11.1998 to 03.10.2013. The details of the two pass books have been given in paragraph 6 of the rejoinder.

¶36

10. This court finds that the enquiry report clearly recorded a finding that the petitioner was not gainfully employed during the period of his dismissal. From perusal of the impugned order this court finds that the authority has mentioned in detail regarding the proceedings during the enquiry but has mentioned no reason to differ

¶37

¶38

with the finding of the enquiry report, rather the impugned order has been passed primarily on the ground that the petitioner has taken financial help from his sister and his wife was gainfully employed and there is certain debit and credit entry in the pass book of the petitioner. 11. This court finds that the respondent authority passed the impugned order as contained in Annexure-5 wherein he refused the grant wages to the petitioner for the period from 27.11.1998 to 03.10.2013 on the ground that -

¶39

a. During the enquiry it was found that the petitioner has been taking financial help from his sister

¶40

b. The wife of the petitioner is working in a school and is engaged in cooking food in the school and is having monthly wages.

¶41

c. Even the sarpanch of the village had stated that the wife of the petitioner is gainfully employed

¶42

d. The passbook of the petitioner revealed that he has been receiving amount in the account and there has been entries of debit and credit.

¶43

12. This court is of the considered view that the 3 out of the four reasons for refusing back wages to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has been taking financial help from his sister and his wife was gainfully employed cannot be a ground to hold that the petitioner was gainfully employed. Vide the 4^th ground for refusal to pay back wages for the period of dismissal, the authority has also referred to some debit and credit entry on the basis of pass books which were opened after reinstatement of the petitioner and accordingly the same could not have been considered by the authority. Altogether three pass books were produced by the petitioner before the authority and only one pass book refers to some debit and credit entry during the period in question but considering the totality of debit and credit entry, as pointed out by the petitioner in the rejoinder and mentioned above, this court finds that there is no consistent entry and the entries of credit are ad hoc entries and there is no regular payment shown in the pass book during the period in question. Otherwise also, the entire amount of credit for the period in question is a meager amount as mentioned above in details. This court is of the considered view that such entries which has been reflected in one amongst the three pass books does not reflect employment of the petitioner during

¶44

¶45

the period in question. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.10.2019 is cannot be sustained in the eyes of law which is accordingly set aside.

¶46

13. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No. 3 to pass fresh order in the matter of back wages of the petitioner considering the fact that the petitioner was not gainfully employed during the period from 27.11.1998 to 03.10.2013. The appropriate order should be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner is found entitled to any amount pursuant to such order, the same be also remitted to the petitioner within a period of one month from passing of the impugned order.

¶47

14. At this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the prayer made in the writ petition the petitioner is also aggrieved by the fact that at present the petitioner is being paid gross pay of Rs. 33,554/- whereas his batch mate police constable are getting gross pay of Rs. 53,600/-. At this the learned counsel for the respondents submits that this grievance of the petitioner can also be considered by the respondent No. 2 for which the petitioner may file a separate representation.

¶48

15. Considering the aforesaid submission, the petitioner may file a representation before respondent No. 2 with regard to aforesaid grievance regarding pay within a period of two months from today. If such representation is filed, the respondent No. 2 is directed to pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner through speed post at the address which may be mentioned by the petitioner in the representation itself.

¶49

16. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶50

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶51

Binit

Ramjee Paswan v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramjee Paswan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jalsu Baraik And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Pankaj Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Uttam Kumar Das Vs Divisional Railway Manager East Central Railway

Parmanand Goswami Vs the State of Jharkhand

Updesh Kumar Dubey Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Inspector General of Police

Clodia Soreng Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Human Resources Development Department