Jharkhand High Court
Radhika Kumari & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 23 June, 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.W.J.C. No. 3180 of 1996 (R)
Radhika Kumari & Others..............................................................Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar & Others.....................................................Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR SINHA
For the Petitioners : Mr.V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate
M/s A.K.Sinha & Ashish Kumar Shekhar,
Advoctes
For the Respondents: Mr. Shamim Akhtar, G.P.-I
-------------------
C.A.V. on 28.5.2009 Pronounced on 23.06.2009
JUDGMENT
18/ 23.06.2009In the instant writ petition the petitioners pray for following reliefs:-
(a) To accept the date of resumption of duty of the respective petitioners as the same on which they submitted their respective applications to the respondents in pursuance of the judgment dated 8.12.1993 passed in C.W.J.C. No.1/92 (R).
or, in alternative to accept 5.1.94 as the date of resumption of duty by the petitioners on which date applications of the petitioners were received by the respondents.
(b) To direct the respondents to pay wages/salary and other financial benefits to the petitioners with effect from 5.1.94 and not with effect from the date on which they were reposted at different places during pendency of contempt application.
2. Sri V.P. Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the 31 petitioners submits that all of them had applied for resumption of duty on 3.1.94 and 5.1.94 and they submitted their respective application in pursuance to the judgment passed on 8.12.93 in C.W.J.C. No.1/92 (R). He further submits that even the appeal S.L.P. No.26384 of 1994 preferred by the state challenging the order of the High Court dated 8.12.93 was dismissed with the following observations:-
"We are not inclined to interfere in this matter particularly when no backwages have been given to the appointees. The respondents will start getting their wages only from the date they resume their services. The special leave petition is dismissed."
3. The learned counsel for the State submits that they have resumed their services only with effect from 13.10.1994 and thus they are entitled to get the salaries from the date they have resumed their services which has already been 2 extended in accordance with the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court. They have also disputed the contention that they had given their joining report on 3.1.94 on the ground that there was no record of their application available as annexed in Annexure-2 series.
4. I have considered the submissions and the entire issue revolves around the wages of the 31 petitioners between the period 05.01.1994 and 13.10.94 i.e. the date on which they allegedly applied and the date on which they resumed their duty.
5. I am bound by the specific direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as quoted hereinabove wherein it has been directed that the respondents (petitioner herein) will start getting their wages only from the date when they resume their services. There is no dispute that they resumed their services w.e.f. 13.10.94 and thus they are entitled to their wages from that date only.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 23 June, 2009 D.S./ N.A.F.R.