Vijay Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand Thro Secretary Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, (Cooperative Department)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(S). No. 2221 of 2024

Vijay Kumar Singh, aged about 62 years, S/o late Deep Narayan Singh, R/o Aarti, P.O. – Amba, P.S. – Kutumb, District – Aurangabad (Bihar).

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, (Cooperative Department), Gov. of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. – Dhurwa, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶7

The Registrar, Cooperative, Ranchi, having its office at Engineering Hostel, second floor, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶8

The Chief Executive officer, the Jharkhand State Cooperative Bank Limited, Ranchi, G.P.O. P.S. – Kotwali, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶9

Regional Manager, Jharkhand State Cooperative bank Limited, Dumka, P.O. & P.S.-Dumka, District – Dumka, Jharkhand.

¶10

Manager, Establishment cum In-charge Officer, Jharkhand State Cooperative Bank Limited, Ranchi, having its office at Shahid Chowk, main Road, G.P.O. P.S. – Kotwali, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶11

… … Respondents

¶12

---

¶13

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

¶14

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, Advocate ---

¶15

07/28^th October 2024

¶16

1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 2273 dated 02.01.2023 passed by the Manager, Establishment cum In-charge Officer, Jharkhand State Cooperative Bank Limited, Ranchi, by which the claim of the petitioner for grant of arrears of salary for the period from 04.05.2007 to 17.03.2013 when he was out of service due to dismissal order dated 04.05.2007 has been rejected.

¶17

2. This is a third round of litigation. For the first time, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 871 of 2008 challenging his termination order dated 04.05.2007. This Court vide order dated 12.04.2012 disposed of the said writ petition by setting aside the termination order. However, liberty was given to the respondents to hold enquiry afresh, if they so choose. Thereafter, in the light of the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 871 of 2008, the petitioner was reinstated

¶18

1

¶19

into services and the period of dismissal from 04.05.2007 to 17.03.2013 was declared as the period of leave without pay. Aggrieved by the part of the order, the petitioner again approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3740 of 2017 with a prayer for grant of arrears of salary for interregnum period. By order dated 24.07.2018, again the matter was remanded to the respondents to take a decision in the mater of payment of arrears of salary. However, once again by order dated 02.10.2023, the claim of the petitioner for the arrears of salary has been rejected, which is impugned in the present writ petition.

¶20

3. Mr. Saurav Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the order rejecting the claim of the petitioner is a contemptuous order, as this Court while disposing of the earlier writ petition, being W.P.(S) No. 3740 of 2017 has been pleased to hold that the petitioner was entitled for the salary as his reinstatement was without any punishment. Learned counsel further submits that taking into account the entire facts and legal issues, this Court was of the view that since the petitioner has been reinstated without awarding any punishment, the petitioner is entitled for full salary from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. Referring to the celebrated judgements of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Jasmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in (2015) 4 SCC 458 submits that if an employee has been reinstated without any punishment, he is entitled for the back wages. Learned counsel also refers the judgment in the case of G.T. Lad & Ors. Vs. Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd ., reported in (1979) 1 SCC 590 in support of his contention.

¶21

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records, it appears that upon quashment of the dismissal order dated 04.05.2007, the petitioner was reinstated into services. However, liberty was there with the respondents to initiate fresh enquiry. But the respondents have chosen not to start any fresh enquiry, rather, the petitioner was reinstated into service simplicitor.

¶22

2

¶23

No punishment order was issued against the petitioner, but he was denied salary from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement.

¶24

This Court in earlier round of litigation in W.P.(S) No. 3740 of 2017 while quoting the provisions of Rule 97 (1) and (2) of the Bihar/Jharkhand Service Code, was of the view that the petitioner was entitled for salary for interregnum period, as the Rules clearly speaks that whether Government servant has been reinstated, the competent authority shall pass an order of pay and allowances for the period of his absence from duty, in case the Government servant has been fully exonerated.

¶25

In the present case, the petitioner was reinstated without awarding any punishment. It is not a case that the respondents were debarred from taking any departmental action against the petitioner, rather, liberty was given to the respondents to initiate fresh departmental enquiry. The respondents have chosen not to start any fresh enquiry. Therefore, it can be comfortably inferred that the petitioner was exonerated from the charges while reinstating him into service and on account of exoneration, the petitioner is entitled for full salary of the period from dismissal to the reinstatement. Even otherwise, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for salary is contemptuous, as in W.P.(S) No. 3740 of 2017, this Court was of the view that the petitioner was entitled for salary and taking into consideration the aforesaid observations, the respondents were given direction to take a decision for payment of salary. But despite these observations, the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner, which is not praiseworthy.

¶26

The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is fully applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G.T. Lad & Ors. Vs. Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd . (supra) has clearly held that where reinstatement has been directed, the entire back wages must follow as a matter of course. Further in the case of Jasmer Singh ( supra ), the Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly held that if an employee has been reinstated without any punishment, he is entitled

¶27

3

¶28

for the back wages. Similar view has been reiterated in the case of Kamal Kumar Patnaik Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. , reported in 2018 (2) JLJR 535 .

¶29

As a sequitur to the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement, the impugned order contained in Memo No. 2273 dated 02.01.2023 passed by the respondent no. 5 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release salary for the period from 04.05.2007 to 17.03.2013 within a period of twelve weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

¶30

Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed.

¶31

Aditi

¶32

4

Vijay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand Thro Secretary Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, (Cooperative Department)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand Thro Secretary Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, (Cooperative Department)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar Garg Vs the State of Jharkhand

G v Lavanya Alias v Lavanya Vs v Sohan Rao

Dhirju Ghansi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sikandar Das Vs State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Snehlata Topno Vs the State of Jharkhand

Praveen Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand