Jharkhand High Court
Achala Kundu vs State Of Jharkhand on 29 August, 2018
Author: Pramath Patnaik
Bench: Pramath Patnaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 5969 of 2015
...
Achala Kundu ..... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1.State of Jharkhand.
2.Dy. Commissioner, Deoghar.
3.Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Deoghar.
4.Dy. Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Deoghar.
5.In charge medical Officer, primary health centre, Jasidih, Deoghar.
6.Principal, ANM Training Hostel, Deoghar .... Respondents ...
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. M. A. Khan, Advocate. For the Respondent-State : - Mr. Abhay Prakash, A.C. to A.A.G. ...
07/29.08.2018 Heard Mr. Mr. M. A. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Abhay Prakash, learned A.C. to A.A.G. appearing for the Respondent-State.
2. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has prayed for payment of salary for some months, which is unpaid in the year 2004, 2013, 2014 and 2015, as stated in para-19 of this writ application as well as for grant of first and the second A.C.P. alongwith interest.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per averments made in paragraph 20 of the writ application the petitioner is entitled to dues of salary as well as ACP benefit for the months from March, 2004 to July 2004, from October, 2013 to December, 2013, salary from January, April to November, 2014, from March, 2015 to till date, 1st ACP due to 2003 and 2nd ACP in 2013 as well as the absentee statement of working period at ANM hostel, Deoghar.
4. In pursuance to the writ application, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent-State, wherein, it has been submitted that the pay of the petitioner has been fixed in the proper pay scale as per sanction of 1st ACP and 2nd ACP by the office of the respondent no. 5 and the petitioner is getting her salary as per the sanctioned benefit of 1st ACP and 2nd ACP as evident from Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. It has further been submitted that since the petitioner has absented himself from duty from March, 2004 to July, 2004 and 16.09.2015 to 05.02.2016 for which the petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit as per the Rule. With regard to salary for the period from October, 2013 to December, 2013 and April, 2014 to May, 2014, the office of the respondents has prepared and presented the bills at Deoghar Treasury for payment to the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing submits that although the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed, but with regard to the other admissible dues, if liberty would be given to the petitioner to file representation annexing the relevant documents, then the grievance of the petitioner shall be redressed.
6. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation alongwith the relevant documents before the respondents and more particularly, respondent no. 3 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/communication of the order and on receipt of the said representation, the respondent no. 3 shall do well to consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate order within a period of four weeks thereafter and the decision taken thereon be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period. It is needless to mention that if the petitioner is entitled to the legally payable admissible salary for the aforementioned period, the same be paid to the petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter.
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Pramath Patnaik, J.) APK