Allowed¶30

Nasrin Shakir v. Education

Jharkhand HC12 Nov 2025WPC/7136/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(S) 7136/2016, Jharkhand HC, 12.11.2025, Deepak Roshan J — salary arrears for non-posting period 30.08.2012–07.03.2013; allocation to Jharkhand 19-4-2012, relief from Bihar 27.08.2012, joining 30.08.2012, work only from 07.03.2013; Finance Department letter No. 40 dt. 7.1.2011 (attendance register) held non-est; joining time treated as period spent on duty; payment ordered within 8 weeks; representations 11.6.2013 & 14.10.2014 ignored.

What did the court decide?

The concerned Respondents to calculate the salary for the period the Petitioner had not been paid and issue a formal order for payment of the salary, completing the entire exercise within 8 weeks from receipt/production of a copy of the order; pending I.As closed. ¶30

Nasrin Shakir Vs Education — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to arrears of salary for the period 30.08.2012 to 07.03.2013, during which she had joined the Director, Primary Education but was given no work. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

An employee cannot be allowed to suffer for non-posting: under the Rule, a period without posting is treated as joining time, and joining time is treated as a period spent on duty, entitling the Petitioner to salary for the intervening period.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The Respondents' stand that the Petitioner is not entitled to salary is non-est in the eye of law, because the Petitioner did not voluntarily abstain from duty: relieved on 27.08.2012, she gave her joining on 30.08.2012.

¶25

Key takeaways

Nothing on record shows that the Petitioner voluntarily failed to sign the attendance register contemplated by the Finance Department circular; hence that ground offers the Respondents no support.ratio¶25
It was the Respondents, not the Petitioner, who were responsible for no work being taken from her during the intervening period.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand (W.P.(S) 7136 of 2016, Justice Deepak Roshan, decided 12.11.2025): An employee allocated to the State of Jharkhand (notification dated 19-4-2012), relieved from Bihar on 27.08.2012 and having joined the Director, Primary Education, Jharkhand on 30.08.2012, was given work only from 07.03.2013 (notification/Annexure-4) and paid no salary for the intervening period. The Court rejected as 'non-est in the eye of law' the Respondents' sole stand — Finance Department letter No. 40, dated 7.1.2011, requiring signing of an attendance register — since nothing on record showed she voluntarily omitted to sign it, and her representations dated 11.6.2013 and 14.10.2014 went unaddressed. Holding that an employee cannot be made to suffer for non-posting, such period being treated as joining time and thus as period spent on duty, and that the Respondents themselves were responsible for not taking work from her, the Court allowed the writ: Respondents directed to calculate the unpaid salary and issue a formal payment order within 8 weeks; pending I.As closed.

¶1

2025:JHHC:34176

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) 7136 of 2016

¶3

Nasirn Shakir, W/o Ashraf Ali, R/o Road No.1 B.H. Area, Kadma, P.O & P.S. Kadma, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum .… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand.

¶6

The Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum Jamshedpur, P.O & P.S. Sakchi, District East Singhbhum.

¶7

The District Superintendent of Education, East Singhbhum, Jamshepur, P.O & P.S. Sakchi District East Singhbhum. ..... Respondents

¶8

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶10

--------For the Petitioner : Mr. Sahil, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV

¶11

¶12

11/Dated: 12.11.2025

¶13

The instant writ application has been preferred by the Petitioner praying for a direction upon the Respondents to immediately and forthwith pay the arrears of salary to the Petitioner for the period from 30.08.2012 to 07.03.2013 for which, admittedly, she has rendered services in the office of the Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi (Respondent No.2).

¶14

2. The sole grievance of the Petitioner is that though she was allocated State of Jharkhand, vide notification dated 19-4-2012, and on 27-8-2012, she was relieved from State of Bihar by the parent department, and on 30-8-2012 itself, she gave joining to the office of Director of Primary Education, where she was transferred. However, it is only on 8th March 2013, she was allowed to work.

¶15

¶16

2025:JHHC:34176

¶17

3. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that it is a peculiar case where the Petitioner was waiting for the work/posting and for the reasons best known to the Respondents, neither any work was taken from her; nor any salary was paid for certain period. However, in the whole episode, that is during the intervening period of about more than six months, she was waiting for posting.

¶18

He further submits that the Petitioner is duly entitled for salary as it is a settled proposition of law that the employee cannot remain without posting and salary has to be paid.

¶19

4. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case wherein the only stand which has been taken is that as per Finance Department letter No. 40, dated 7.1.2011, the petitioner is not entitled for salary. For brevity, the relevant portion of the said letter is extracted hereinbelow.

¶20

(i) “अपरिहार्य स्थिति में पदथिापन की अतनवार्य ्ቚिी्ቌा में िहने वाल पदाधिकारिर्ों/कर्मयर्ों के र्लए कार्ायलर् पिान अिवा एस ववभागाध्र ् , स्िनके द्वािा पदाधिकारिर्ों/कर्मयर्ों का पदथिापन ककर्ा िािा है, के कार्ायलर् में एक उपस्थिति पंिी संिारिि की िार्ेगी, भाि िहहि अवधि िहने वाले स्िसमे ्ቚ में पदाधिकािी/कमी ्ቚ तिहदन तनर्र्मि रूप से अपनी उपस्थिति दिय किेंगे। इस उपस्थिति पंिी की समी्ቌा ्ቚ भािी थिापना पदाधिकािी दैतनक रूप से ििा कार्ायलर् ्ቚ िान/ववभागाध्र ् साप्िाहहक रूप से किेंगे। अगि संबंधिि पदाधिकािी/कमी द्वािा अपनी हास्ििी नहीं बनार्ी िािी है िो र्े अनाधिकृि रूप म अनुपस्थिि माने िार्ेगें ।“

¶21

5. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the parties, and

¶22

¶23

2025:JHHC:34176

¶24

after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits and the averments made therein, admittedly, the Petitioner, vide Annexure-1 was allocated State of Jharkhand, in the Department of Director Primary Education, Jharkhand. Vide Annexure-2, it is evident that she was relieved from the State of Bihar on 27/8/2012, and vide Annexure-3, which is dated 30/8/2012, she gave her joining before the Director, Primary Education, State of Jharkhand. However, she was not being taken any work, and it is only after notification dated 07.03.13 (Annexure-4), she started discharging her duty.

¶25

6. The grievance of the Petitioner is that she has not been paid any salary for the intervening period that is 30.08.2012 to 07.03.2013, for which she is entitled. 7. This Court is of the view that the stand of the Respondents is non-est in the eye of law, in view of the admitted fact that it was not the Petitioner who voluntarily not done her duty, rather; immediately after being relieved on 27.08.2012 from the parent Department in the State of Bihar, she gave her joining on 30.08.2012. 8. The ground mentioned in the counter affidavit and the circular annexed with, it shows that a person will have to sign the attendance register, but the fact remains that there is no cheat of paper filed by the Respondents that the Petitioner voluntarily did not sign the attendance register. From the averments made in the writ application in paragraph nos. 14 and 15, it appears that the petitioner has also represented twice Vide Representation dated 11.6.2013 and 14.10.2014 . However, the said representations were not taken care of, and ultimately vide notification dated 07.03.13 (Annexure-4), the

¶26

¶27

2025:JHHC:34176

¶28

Petitioner was assigned a school where she had worked. In the entire episode, it is evident that it was not the Petitioner; rather the respondents, who were responsible for not taking work from the Petitioner.

¶29

9. The law is well settled that an employee cannot be allowed to suffer for non-posting as the Rule itself suggests that if a person is without posting, the said period has to be treated as a joining time and further joining time has been treated as period spent on duty.

¶30

10. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant application stands allowed. The concerned Respondents are directed to calculate the amount of salary for the period the Petitioner had not been paid and issue a formal order for payment of the salary. The entire exercise, shall be completed within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

¶31

11. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.As, if any, is also closed.

¶32

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶33

November 12, 2025 Fahim/ Uploaded on 21/11/2025

¶34

Nasrin Shakir v. Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nasrin Shakir v. Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Employers in Relation to the Mgmt of Gondudih Colliery Vs Presiding Officer And Anr.

Ramanuj Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manwill Srivastava Vs the State Jharkhand

Ram Sidh Sharma Vs Human Resources Department

Amanat Khan Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Director General Of Police And Ors.

Ghanshyam Pathak Vs Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank