Surendar Kumar Sinha v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court CWJC No.2750 of 2013 (3) dt.21-02-2013 2 Surendar Kumar Sinha and Md. Sabir and it was purely on account of error on the part of the Clerk of her office that the first page of two cases got inter-mixed and changed. Considering these aspects this Court would give liberty to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file first page of the writ application containing the name of Surendar Kumar Sinha and Md. Sabir with correct court fees in course of the day and to collect the first page of the brief having the name of Kumari Rani. In view of above the order dated 11.2.2013 shall be deemed to have been passed today which would read as follows: Heard learned counsel for the parties. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ application and the prayer made by her to the following extent:- “1(i) That an appropriate writ may be issued commanding upon the respondent authority to pay the salary to the petitioner from 4.5.05 to 12.10.06 for the period to be petitioners were forced out of service.

(ii) That an appropriate writ may be issued quashing the part of Resolution No. 659 of Paragraph 6 to the extent by which it is communicated that after stopping of taking service from the concerned employee till date of absorption no salary is payable.” by itself would indicate that after more than six years, the petitioners could become serious for challenging the term of her Patna High Court CWJC No.2750 of 2013 (3) dt.21-02-2013 3 adjustment in government service. Admittedly, the petitioner was working in a scheme for the period 1988 to 2005, inasmuch as, from the government resolution dated 20.5.2006, it is clear that such scheme of unemployment token allowance scheme under the Labour Employment and Training Department came to an end in the year 2005-06. Thereafter the petitioners working on Class-3 post in the pay-scale of Rs. 550-860/- given to them in the year 1988 with its modification made from time to time were sought to be absorbed in the government service by the Government resolution dated 20.5.2006, the relevant clause whereof reads as follows:- ^^…1‰ vfu; kstu ladsrd HkRrk ;kstukUrxZr fyfid@fnup; kZ fyfid ds in ij dk; Zjr dfeZ;ksa dk lek; kstu funs” kd] lekftd lqj{kk] fcgkj iVuk ds {ks=k/khu fofHkUu ftyksa esa miyC/k ys[kk fyfid] osrueku 4000&6000@& ds fjDr inksa ij gksxkA mlh izdkj ;kstukUrxZr prqFkZ oxhZ; inksa ij dk; Zjr dfeZ;ksa dk lek; kstu funs” kd] fu; kstu ,oa izf” k{k.k ¼izf” k{k.k i{k½ fcgkj] iVuk ds {ks=k/khu fofHkUu LFkkiukvksa esa miyC/k prqFkZ oxhZ; deZpkjh osrueku 2550&3200@& ds fjDr inksa ij gksxkA lek; kstu ds iwoZ vfu; kstu ladsrd HkRrk ;kstukUxZr inksa ij dk; Zjr deZpkfj; ksa dk osrueku dqN Hkh jgk gks lek; kstu ds mijkUr mijksDr osrueku gh mudks vuqekU; gksxkA vr,o ;kstukUrxZr r‘rh; Js.kh ds in ij dk; Zjr deZpkfj; ksa dks osrueku dqN Hkh gks] osrueku 4000&6000@& esa mls ifjofrZr dj mUgsa fey jgs osru ds le:i gh osrueku 4000&6000@& esa u;s laoxZ ds u;s Patna High Court CWJC No.2750 of 2013 (3) dt.21-02-2013 4 inLFkkiu esa mUga osru ns; gksxkA mlh izdkj prqFkZ oxhZ; deZpkfj; ksa ds fy;s Hkh iwoZ ds in ij ik jgs osrueku dks 2550&3200@& esa ifjofrZr djrs gq, ik jgs osru ds le:i u;s laoxZ ds u;s inLFkkiu esa osrueku 2550&3200@& esa osru ns; gksxkA …6‰ lek; kstu ds mijkUr lek; ksftr dfeZ;ksa dh lsok esa dksbZ VwV ugha ekuh tk, xh ;|fi fd ;kstukUrxZr in ij mudh lsok cUn fd;s tkus dh frfFk ls lek; kstu gksus dh frfFk rd muls dksbZ dk;Z ugha fy;k x;k gS vkSj u gh ml vof/k ds fy;s mUgsa osru vuqekU; gSA** It is this aspect of the matter which would seal the fate of the petitioners from claiming salary for the intervening period, inasmuch as, after abolition of the scheme, if the Government was kind and considerate to absorb the petitioners in service by not allowing them to get salary for the intervening period, they after almost seven years cannot claim such benefit of payment of salary.

The fact that lek; kstu (adjustment) was made by applying the rules of roaster and reservation would in fact give indication of fresh appointment and, therefore, there would be no question of allowing the petitioners’ salary for the earlier period. As a matter of fact, the respondents have given the benefit of the past service which would enable the petitioners and others to get their pension and other retirement benefits counter of the earlier service rendered by them. In that view of the matter, the real grievance of the Patna High Court CWJC No.2750 of 2013 (3) dt.21-02-2013 5 petitioner as with regard to denial of the salary seems in his representation dated 31.8.2010, wherein, the petitioner had stated as follows:- ^^Je] fu; kstu ,oa izf” k{k.k foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk }kjk lsok lek; kstu dh izfdz;k esa 20 ekg yxkdj ge lc ds 20 ekg ds osru vkfn dks jksd fn;k x;kA bl jksd ds dkj.k geyksxksa dks lsok lEiqf’V] ,-lh-ih- ] inksUurh vkfn ns; lqfo/kk,a Hkh cUn gSA 20 ekg ds osru vkfn ugha feyus ds dkj.k lsok lEiqf’V ugha gksus ds dkj.k ,-lh-ih-] inksUurh vkfn ugha feyus ds dkj.k gelc dks yxrk gh ugha gS fd ge lHkh Hkh Lor= ns” k ds fcgkj jkT; ds ljdkjh deZpkjh gSA** From the aforesaid representation, it would, therefore, be clear that in the name of getting the salary for the period of twenty months, the petitioners actually wants the benefit of ACP go be given by treating the earlier services qualifying for counting of the ACP. That however is not permissible in terms of ACP rules or the specific terms and conditions of the resolution of the Government.

That being so, this application is without merit and the is, accordingly, dismissed with the aforementioned observations. The Stamp Reporter, who had failed to detect this defect, must remain very careful in future or else he may lose his job. surendra/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Patna High Court CWJC No.2750 of 2013 (3) dt.21-02-2013 6