Disposed

Nirmal Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC27 Jun 2012CWJC/7076/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought payment of salary withheld pending an enquiry. Bench noted the double delay in enquiry establishment. Granted liberty to issue a show-cause notice for specific unworking days and directed payment of dues within three months of producing the Counter Affidavit.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to issue show cause notice for periods without duty discharge. Payment of legitimate dues directed within 3 months of receiving Counter Affidavit.

Nirmal Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7076 of 2011

¶2

====================================================== Nirmal Kumar .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Murari Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashok Kr Choudhry Sc13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER 6 27-06-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

¶3

The petitioner seeks payment of salary from December, 2004 till date.

¶4

Counter affidavit is stated to have been filed on 20.6.2012 which is not on record. The Court therefore requested the counsel for the State to make available his copy for perusal so as not to hold up the proceedings on that ground. The office shall place the filed copy on record.

¶5

It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a matriculate trained assistant teacher on 25.4.1988 and was posted as an assistant teacher at the Primary School, Baghmara in the District of Jamui. In 1992 he was transferred from Baghmara to Suhia Primary School, Chakai Circle, District- Jamui. In 1992 the respondents stopped his salary purporting to examine documents relating to his appointment. Apparently, satisfied with the same payment of salary commenced and was paid regularly till 2004 when it

¶6

Patna High Court CWJC No.7076 of 2011 (6) dt.27-06-2012

¶7

¶8

has been stopped again from December, 2004. His request evoked no response. Reliance is placed upon an order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.8474/09 that salary being a statutory right, there was no authority in the respondents in law to withhold the same pending an enquiry with directions to pay the salary within one month. The petitioner is also entitled to current salary.

¶9

The counter affidavit of the respondents does not deny the letter of appointment dated 25.4.1988. Likewise, it does not deny the specific assertion in paragraph-9 of the writ application that an enquiry into his appointment was held in 1992 and salary was stopped, but subsequently recommenced and was paid till November, 2004. The only reasonable conclusion possible by ordinary prudence is that the respondents found his papers to be in order and only then recommenced the payment.

¶10

If the respondents are today of the opinion that salary was wrongly paid under the enquiry of 1992, they are first required to proceed appropriately under the civil and criminal laws of the land against their own officers. The pleadings in paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit answering paragraph-9 are completely silent with regard to the enquiry done in 1992. Annexure-A to the counter affidavit referring to the enquiry directed in 2004 also does not make any reference to the earlier enquiry of 1992. The Court is

¶11

Patna High Court CWJC No.7076 of 2011 (6) dt.27-06-2012

¶12

¶13

surprised of the manner in which the respondents have kept an enquiry pending since 2004 and have woken up only after the petitioner has filed the writ application. Their defence that notices had been issued to the petitioner to produce certain documents does not appeal to the Court. If the petitioner was not cooperating, the respondents were not powerless. It only indicates that someone in the office of the respondents was drawing his salary without discharging his duty. It has already been observed that the salary is a statutory right. If a government servant was not working, he was not entitled to salary.

¶14

The counter affidavit takes no objection that the petitioner has not been discharging duties. However, a very limited liberty is granted to the respondents that if they are of the opinion that the petitioner has not discharged duties for any specified period or days by imparting education in the classroom, they may issue him a show cause notice limited to those dates.

¶15

In this manner, let the legitimate dues of the petitioner be paid to him within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶16

The writ application is disposed.

¶17

(Navin Sinha, J)

¶18

K.C.jha/-

Nirmal Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmal Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Haradeo Narayan Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Chandra Bhushan Ojha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Niwas Prasad Singh and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Md. Sagiruddin and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

State of Bihar and Ors. Vs M/S Sri Laxmi Agro Industries

Malti Devi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.