Mr. Altaf Hussain, J.C. to G.P v. P R E S E N T HON'BLE
Case Details
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 754 of 2001 (An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) 1. Niwaran Bhakta 2. Biren Gope 3. Banmali Bhakta 4. Mohan Bhakta 5. Din Bandhu Murmu 6. Kanto Patra 7. Nirmal Namta … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, (East) Singhbhum at Jamshedpur. 3. The Superintendent of Police, (East) Singhbhum at Jamshedpur. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Ghatshila. 5. The Circle Officer, Mushabani District (East), Jamshedpur. ... Respondents For the Petitioners For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
:1.Mr. Laljee Sahay, Advocate. :2.Mrs. Nitu Sinha, Advocate :Mr. Altaf Hussain, J.C. to G.P. V. P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR By Court This writ petition has been filed seeking direction upon the respondents for payment of salary for the period from October, 1998 to February, 1999 and also for the payment of salary from May, 1999 onwards. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner no. 1 was working since 10.11.1987, petitioner no. 2 was working since 1.6.1986, petitioner no. 3 was working from 20.06.1979, petitioner no. 4 was working from 22.12.1986, petitioner no. 5 was working from 1.1.1968, petitioner no. 6 was working from 1.2.1987 and petitioner no. 7 was working from 1.12.1987. It has been claimed by the petitioners that the Government took a decision to regularize the service of Chowkidars, who worked since 1.1.1990 and accordingly their services were also regularized. However, in the mean-time the salary of the petitioners was withheld. The respondent no. 4 wrote a letter dated 1.8.1995 to respondent no. 5 for payment of 2 salary to the Chowkidars who were working prior to 1.1.1990. The petitioners' salary between the period October, 1998 and February 1999 was not paid and thereafter they were paid salary only for two months, and again their salary was stopped. The respondent no. 5 wrote a letter on 16.8.2000 seeking permission from respondent no. 4 for payment of salary to the petitioners. However, the petitioners were not paid salary and therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed in which a stand has been taken that services of the petitioners were not regularized. On 14.12.1998 when they were required to appear before the Establishment Committee for interview, since they did not appear, their services were not regularized. On this ground, the claim of the petitioners has been resisted by the respondents. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5.
Decision
In reply of paragraph no. 13 to the writ petition, the respondents have stated as under, 12.”That with regard to the statements in paragraph 13, it is submitted that the respondent no. 5, namely Circle Officer, Mosabani has written a letter to Respondent No. 4, namely S.D.O. Ghatshila dated 16.8.2000 for seeking permission for payment of salary to the petitioners against which no reply was received and verification of documents and actual native place of the petitioners is going on thoroughly, so the fresh appointments of genuine candidate in the vacant bits could have been done.” 6. It would be useful to note the stand taken by respondents in paragraph no. 5 wherein they have taken a stand that due to strike of the non-gazetted employees between 25.1.1999 to 7.5.1999, the salary of the non- gazetted employees including Chowkidars was withheld. Para 5 of counter-affidavit is extracted below, 5. “That with regard to the statement made in 3 para 1 it is submitted that the same is misconceived and unfounded for the reason stated hereinafter. That it is pointed out that the petitioners have not been paid their salaries for the month of November and December 1998 are concerned, it is submitted that the same was withheld as the absentee was not received from concerned Police Station and as there was strike of non-gazetted employees from 25.1.1999 to 7.5.1999 and during the strike period all the salaries of non-gazetted staff including Chowkidar was withheld. As such, the petitioners' salaries for that period was not paid. But the salary for the Month of March and April 1999 was paid to the petitioners. It is stated that according to the Government's notification for regularisation of Chowkidar who were working in the District a detailed report was called for from the Block concerned and accordingly the report was received by the Establishment Department and after taking interview those Chowkidars, who appeared before the Establishment Committee were duly regularized namely Sri Manohar Bhakta, Sri Gopal Manjhi and Sri Puran Chand Bhakat from Jadugora Police Station. Sri Gopal Manjhi and Sri Puran Chand Bhakta were regularised with effect from 14.12.1998 and as the petitioners did not turn up before meeting of the establishment Committee which was held on 14.12. 1998 and consequently they were not regularised in the said meeting. However, subsequently, a verification of documents was held and Bio-data of the petitioners were recorded , where it was found, most of the petitioners did not fulfill the criteria imposed in the notification and most of them are not directly related to the deceased Chowkidars.” 7. This has thus been admitted that due to strike of non-gazetted employees from 25.1.1999 to 7.5.1999, the salary of the non-gazetted employees including Chowkidars was withheld and as such salary for the said period was not paid. 4 8. Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has raised a contention that admittedly, the salary of the petitioners between the period from October, 1998 to February, 1999 was not paid, as it has been admitted by the respondents in the counter-affidavit filed by them. She has confined her argument and submitted that in view of Annexure-5, that is, Letter dated 16.8.2000, it appears that till that time the petitioners were in service and therefore, they are entitled for payment of salary atleast for the period they have actually worked. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit. He has resisted the claim of the petitioners on the ground that since their services were not regularized, they are not entitled for any payment of salary. 9. The initial appointment of the petitioners is not in dispute. This is also not in dispute that between the period from October, 1998 to February, 1999, the salary of the petitioners was not paid to them. The only reason put forward by the respondents is that due to strike, the salary of the non-gazetted employees including Chowkidars was not paid to them. It is nowhere stated in the counter- affidavit that salary of the petitioners were forfeited. The official correspondences brought on record particularly Annexure-5 dated 16.8.2000 clearly indicate that there were official correspondences between the officials seeking permission for payment of salary to the Chowkidars who were working as substitute Chowkidars. 10. In view of the above materials on record, I am inclined to give direction to the respondents to make payment to the petitioners for the period between October, 1998 to February, 1999 and for any other period for which they have actually worked. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 10th May,2013 Shanant/A.F.R. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)