Radhakant Lal Deo, aged about 62 years, son of Late Hardeo Lal Deo, resident v. 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary; Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1745 of 2023 Radhakant Lal Deo, aged about 62 years, son of Late Hardeo Lal Deo, resident of Village & P.O.-Sitapur, P.S.-Birpur, District- Supaul (Bihar) Petitioner … … Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary; Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi; 2. Principal Secretary, Health and Medical Education Department of the Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & PS..- Doranda, District-Ranchi; 3. Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Jamtara, P.O. & P.S.- Jamtara, District- Jamtara; 4. First Medical Officer-in-charge, Primary Health Centre, Jamtara, P.O. & P.S.- Jamtara, District- Jamtara; … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC-III --- 05/27.02.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ(s)/ Order(s)/commanding upon the respondents to pay and release the arrear salary for the period from “01.02.2020 to 28.02.2021" with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of due till the date of actual payment thereof and within a specified period.” 3. While giving the factual background of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide communication dated 21.09.2019 the respondent no.3 intimated the respondent no. 4 about the date of retirement of the petitioner and the name of the petitioner appeared at sl. no.3 showing the date of retirement as 31.01.2020. 4. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner on 03.10.2019 (Annexure-3), requested the respondent no. 4 to arrange for taking over charge of different records which were in his custody and on 10.01.2020, the respondent no. 4 had asked the petitioner to hand over the charge to one Arbind Kumar Mukhraj, Basic Health Worker, Primary Health Centre, Jamtara. 5. On 22.01.2020, the petitioner reported to Respondent No. 4 that nobody was present to take over the charge from him, and thereafter, 2 on 28.01.2020, the petitioner was asked to hand over the charge to another person, and ultimately, the charge could be taken over by one Gopi Nath Dutta only on 20.06.2020, and the no dues certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner on 17.02.2021. 6. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner is praying for salary for the period from 01.02.2020 to 28.02.2021. 7. The learned counsel has submitted that the delay in handing over the charge is fully attributable to the respondents, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for salary even for the period post-retirement till the date of issuance of no dues certificate. He has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “C. Rajendran and others v. The University of Calicut and others” in Civil Appeal Nos. 7075-7076 of 2023, decided on 30th October 2023. The learned counsel submits that in the said case, the university professors continued to teach the students even after the date of superannuation, and ultimately, they were entitled to payment post- retirement. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the prayer, has submitted that in terms of Annexure- 4 dated 10.01.2020, the petitioner was directed to hand over the charge within a period of one week, but the communication to the effect that the concerned person to take over the charge was not available, was given by the petitioner only on 22.01.2020. It is not clear as to why the petitioner did not take any steps to hand over the charge within seven days from 10.01.2020. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the petitioner had given a letter dated 28.01.2020 which has been annexed with the counter-affidavit wherein he had shown his inability to hand over the charge since he was not prepared with the up-to-date record of godown. The learned counsel submits that the delay in handing over the charge is attributable to the petitioner. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner discharged his duties after attaining his age of superannuation and therefore, the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not apply to the facts of this case. 3 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2020 and much before his date of superannuation, he was asked to hand over the charge vide letter dated 10.01.2020 within a period of 7 days.
Decision
The writ petition is completely silent as to what steps were taken by the petitioner within 7 days from the letter dated 10.01.2020. However, on 22.01.2020 the petitioner informed respondent no. 4 that nobody was present to take over the charge from him. 11. The counter-affidavit reveals that the petitioner himself was not ready with the up-to-date record of godown to hand over the charge as is apparent from the letter annexed with the counter-affidavit dated 28.01.2020. The said letter of the petitioner reveals that there was no complete readiness on the part of the petitioner to hand over the charge. 12. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that even after attaining the age of superannuation the petitioner has been attending the office regularly and was assigned any work whatsoever. 13. The counter-affidavit also reveals that one vigilance case being Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 4 of 2016 is also pending against the petitioner in which the trial has commenced and vide memo no. 1586 dated 18.09.2019, the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Jamtara has also accorded sanction for prosecution but the retiral benefits have already been paid to the petitioner. 14. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioner was not completely ready to hand over the charge on 28.01.2020 as is apparent from Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit and it is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner continued to discharge duties and the respondents were taking work from him even after he attained the age of superannuation. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as prayed for in this writ petition. 15. So far as the judgment passed in the case of “C. Rajendran and others Vs. The University of Calicut and others” (Supra) is concerned, the same is distinguishable, since the professors in the said case had been attending the teaching work even after their retirement 4 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that the professors who were the appellants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court were to be suitably compensated for the extended period of performance of their duty. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the aforesaid judgment relied upon by the petitioner does not help the petitioner. 16. Consequently, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. 17. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Pankaj (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)