Allowed

Kamlesh Roy v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC15 Oct 2019CWJC/20176/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court held that the petitioner was illegally kept out of service due to the respondents' mistake, not his volition. The court directed respondents to pay 50% arrears of salary for the period and allow averaging of service continuity.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay 50% arrears of salary for the period 01.11.2013 to 21.02.2019 within three months; service continuity to be counted for the said period.

Kamlesh Roy Vs The State of Bihar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20176 of 2019

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Kamlesh Roy S/o Shakaldeep Roy resident of Mohalla Minapur, P.S. Nagar Hajipur, District- Vaishali.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Director Primary Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Vaishali.

¶9

The District Education Officer, Vaishali.

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

======================================================

¶12

Appearance :

¶13

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, AC to G.P.-23

¶14

======================================================

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER

¶16

2 15-10-2019

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel

¶18

for the State.

¶19

The issue involved in the writ petition is non-payment of arrears of salary for the period petitioner is illegally kept out from service. Petitioner has earlier approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11867 of 2014, vide order dated 29.08.2018 the court passed the following orders;

¶20

“In view of the dispute raised that the petitioner was never appointed under the disable category, the matter is remitted back to the authorities to examine whether the petitioner was appointed under the disable

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.20176 of 2019(2) dt.15-10-2019 2/4

¶22

category and if it is found that he was not appointed under the disable category but on the basis of merits, the respondents may pass appropriate order considering merit position of the petitioner. In case he was appointed under the disable category and he does not fulfill the required criteria, the order contained in Annexure-1 need not be disturbed.

¶23

Since, the matter has been remitted back to the authority concerned, the order as contained in Annexure-1 shall be kept in abeyance till final decision in the matter. The consequential benefits will abide by the final outcome of the decision afresh by the authority concerned. The decision in this regard must be taken by the respondents within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶24

With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.”

¶25

The respondents have rectified their mistake and

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.20176 of 2019(2) dt.15-10-2019 3/4

¶27

reinstated the petitioner. In the process the petitioner was kept out the payment for the period from 01.11.2013 to 21.02.2019. Now the petitioner has filed present writ application for direction to the respondents for payment of arrears of salary for the aforesaid period.

¶28

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that petitioner has not worked for the aforesaid period and therefore, no work no pay principle is applicable.

¶29

It is true that petitioner has not worked for the aforesaid period, but not on his own volition rather he was restrained from discharging the duty by the respondents on wrong premise of fact. After order of this court, the respondents have rectified their mistake and as such the respondents have restrained the petitioner from discharging the duty from 01.11.2013 to 21.02.2019. Elaborating the submission and the aforesaid circumstance there is no difficulty in directing the respondents to count the continuity of the service for the aforesaid period during which petitioner was illegally kept out from his services i.e. 01.11.2013 to 21.02.2019.

¶30

On the issue of payment of arrears of salary, having regard to the computing interest of the petitioner as well as State the Court directs that 50 per cent amount shall be paid to the

¶31

Patna High Court CWJC No.20176 of 2019(2) dt.15-10-2019 4/4

¶32

petitioner for the aforesaid period within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Failing which the arrears will carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.

¶33

With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of

¶34

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J)

¶35

T.Kr./-

¶36

Kamlesh Roy v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Roy v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Kumar Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Banaras Singh Degree College and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Gaurav and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Shayamadeo Kumar Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Santosh Kumar Thakur Vs The State of Bihar

Jitendra Pandey Vs The State of Bihar