Jharkhand High Court
Garib Mahto vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. In W. P. (S) ... on 7 March, 2019
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 4622 of 2005
......
Garib Mahto ...... .....Petitioner
Vrs.
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Chief Conservator of Forest cum Managing Director, Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. Ranchi
3. Managing Director, Bihar State Tannin Extract Ltd, Patna
4. Managing Director, Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Patna
5. Managing Director cum Chairman, Bihar State Leather Industries Development Corporation Ltd. Patna
6. Commissioner, Regional Provident Fund, Patna
7. In-charge Works Manager, Tannin Extract Plant, Latehar
8. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, (Branch Office- P & R Group Investment, Patna), Patna
9. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Adv. For the Resp. No. 2. : Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Adv. For the Resp. No. 6. : Mr. Gautam Prakash, Adv.
....
08/07.03.2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed for direction upon the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of salary and other amounts for the period, he has worked before his resignation. Relevant Para-7 of the writ petition is quoted hereinbelow:
"7. That it is humbly stated that while the petitioner was in service of the Bihar State Tannin extraction plant, Latehar he has been paid his salary but without any rhyme and reason his salary for the month of September to December, 1996 and from January to 17.4.1997 has not been paid. The total amount in this head comes to Rs. 30,757/- but out of which a sum of Rs. 19,172/- has been deposited in the account of the petitioner bearing account no. 2607 in the State Bank of India of its Latehar branch, but the rest amount i.e. Rs. 11,585/- has not been paid without any rhyme or reason inspite of the fact that the petitioner has regularly discharged his duty and he was never been put under suspension nor any departmental proceeding was ever initiated against him."
Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer and has relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Nawal Kishore Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. in W. P. (S) No. 5329 of 2007 on 10.05.2013 and the judgement rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttarakhand Vs. Umakant Joshi reported in 2012(11) SCC 164 and has submitted that cause of action of the petitioner has -2- arisen before the bifurcation of the State and as such, appropriate forum is High Court of Judicature at Patna and not before this Court.
In such a situation, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to pursue before the appropriate forum.
In view of the above submission made, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach before the appropriate authority.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Kamlesh/