Allowed

Jagdeep Ram v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC24 Feb 2009CWJC/10427/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ application challenging an order denying salary during suspension. Relying on a show cause notice requirement under Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the grant of full suspension salary.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order denying salary for the suspension period is set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to full salary for the period of suspension.

Jagdeep Ram Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2009)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
 CWJC No.10427 of 2002
 JAGDEEP RAM, son of Late Shiv Bhajan Ram
 Resident of Village Ghanto, Post Goh, PS Goh, District
 Aurangabad

¶2

……………………………. Petitioner

¶3

 Versus

¶4

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR

¶5

2. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad

¶6

3. The Zila Panahcyat Raj Padhadhikari, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad

¶7

4. The Deputy Collector-cum Conducting Officer, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad

¶8

5. The Block Development Officer, Deo Block, District Aurangabad

¶9

…………. Respondents

¶10

-----------

¶11

24.02.2009 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶12

Counsel for the State.

¶13

The only issue for consideration in this writ application is the challenge to the order denying nothing beyond subsistence allowance payable for the period of suspension in between 1.7.1995 to 17.9.1997.

¶14

The petitioner was proceeded against departmentally. By Annexure 1 dated 28.2.2002 the departmental proceedings appear to have been concluded in pursuance of his superannuation when the aforesaid punishment came to be passed.

¶15

Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code requires the State Government to pass appropriate orders with regard to the period of suspension on conclusion of the departmental proceedings.

¶16

That has been interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dinesh Prasad Versus State of Bihar & ors., 2006(4) PLJR 514, and this Court considers it proper to quote Paragraph 9 of the same as under:-

¶17

“9. Apart from these questions, so far the main question for which this matter has been referred, is concerned, it appears that for imposing the punishment no. (iii) that the petitioner shall not get anything for the period of suspension save and except the subsistence allowance, the disciplinary authority was required to give separate show cause notice to the delinquent in terms of Rule 97(3) of the Code. This part of the order, therefore, is not permissible in absence of any such notice to the delinquent employee.”

¶18

In absence of the necessary notice to the petitioner prior

¶19

to issuance of the impugned order dated 28.2.2002 denying him

¶20

salary for the period of suspension the order becomes unsustainable. It is accordingly set aside.

¶21

The petitioner is held entitled to full salary for the period of suspension. The writ application stands allowed.

¶22

Snkumar/-

¶23

(Navin Sinha,J.)

Jagdeep Ram v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdeep Ram v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bihar State Survey and Settlemen Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Suresh Prasad Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Hav.Shiv Shanker Choudhary Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Varun Kumar Vs the Director,National Institut

Amit Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Jawahar Ram Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.