Jharkhand High Court
Ram Eakbal Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 28 January, 2016
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 513 of 2007
---
Ram Eakbal Singh --- --- ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary - cum - Commissioner, Water Resources Department, Jharkhand
3. Engineer - in - Chief, Water Resources Department, Jharkhand
4. Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Jharkhand
5. Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Department, Ranchi
6. State of Bihar --- --- --- Respondents
---
CORAM:The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
For the Petitioner: M/s V. Shivnath, Sr. Advocate, Niraj Kishore, Advocate
For the Resp - State: JC to SC-1
---
08/ 28.01.2016Heard counsel for the parties.
2. Prayer of the petitioner as contained in Para-1 of the writ petition, is quoted hereunder:
1. That in the instant writ application the Petitioner is desirous of issuance of an appropriate Writ/writs, Order/orders and/or direction/directions directing the Respondents to pay the difference of salary of the petitioner after calculating from 1 st December, 1998 to 18th December 1998, 1st January 2004 to 18th January 2004 and from the month of April 2004 to July 2004 when the petitioner was in working period and from August 2003 to 5 th October 2003, 19th January 2004 to 31st January 2004 and from the month of February 2004 to March 2004 when the petitioner was in leave, with interest at the rate of 18% per annum."
3. Petitioner contends that respondents have admitted payment of salary of Rs. 5928/- as per statements made at para-5 of supplementary counter affidavit for the period 1.12.1998 to 18.12.1998. As per the statements made in the supplementary counter affidavit and as contained in letter dated 19.09.2007 bearing letter no. 336 (Annexure-B), respondent allege his absence for the period January to April 2004 and July 2004. For the rest of the periods, they have stated that Executive Engineer, Planning and Monitoring Division, Ranchi informed the Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Jharkhand that the petitioner, a Junior Engineer at the relevant point of time at Jehanabad, had not made any application for leave. Petitioner submits that he has applied for leave due to serious illness of his wife vide Annexure-1 series before the Executive Engineer, Water ways Division, Jehanabad. After availing leave, he joined at Jehanabad on 06.10.2003. He has discharged his 2. duties till 06.11.2003 there and thereafter was posted in Waterways Sub Division, Ekangarsarai on 06.11.2003. Petitioner's wife became seriously ill and he made another application for urgent leave to Sub Divisional Officer, Waterways Sub Division, Ekangarsarai vide Annexure-2 series by Registered Post. Petitioner has enclosed absentee statement for certain period of posting at Ekangarsarai. According to him, he was also engaged in Election duty in Bihar and was appointed as Counting Supervisor for the period 07.04.2004, 10.04.2004 and 13.05.2004 vide Annexure-10 to reply to the supplementary counter affidavit of the respondents. Counsel for the petitioner submits that his applications for leave have not been rejected either. Petitioner was allocated to the successor State of Jharkhand in 2004 and has superannuated thereafter in 2011 under the Water Resources Department. It is submitted that applications of leave made by the petitioner should be considered in accordance with law by the competent authority for taking a decision as it has substantial relationship to the post retirement benefits to which he is entitled for long years of service.
4. Learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand submits that the petitioner has been paid retiral benefits after superannuation in 2011. Payments of provisional pension, gratuity, GPF, group insurance and leave encashment amount are shown to have been made as per extract of service book enclosed as Annexure-C to the supplementary counter affidavit.
5. In the light of the factual background of the case, referred to herein above, it appears that the claim of the petitioner for the period August 2003 to October 2003, 01.01.2004 to 18.01.2004, April 2004 to July 2004 and for certain periods in February and March 2004, could not be determined as respondents did not find any application made towards leave on his behalf. Provisional pension and gratuity have been shown to be paid on their part. Whether the aforesaid period of service of the petitioner is treated as continuity in service on the part of the respondents or not, is not clear from their stand. Petitioner on the other hand has relied upon the enclosure to the 3. writ petition to submit that he made application for sanction of leave for certain periods for the year 2003-04. Now, when the petitioner has retired after allocation to the successor State of Jharkhand, it would only be proper that the grievances of the petitioner for the aforesaid period be considered by the competent authority / Respondent No. 3 - Engineer - in - Chief, Water Resources Department, Jharkhand before whom he should make an application through proper channel, duly supported with necessary facts and documents.
6. Needless to say, on receipt thereof, the competent authority / Respondent No. 3 would consider the same in accordance with law after due scrutiny of his relevant service records within a reasonable time preferably twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Dependent upon such decision, if the claim towards salary for the period in question is found to be admissible, the same shall be released to the petitioner.
7. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) Ranjeet/