Jharkhand High Court
Binod Kumar Choudhary And Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 10 July, 2017
Author: S.N.Pathak
Bench: S.N.Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S)No.1916 of 2017
1. Binod Kumar Choudhary.
2. Ajay Kumar Jha.
3. Sanjay Kumar Jha.
4. Jayant Mandal.
5. Naresh Prasad Sah.
6. Yogesh Kumar.
7. Awadhesh Kumar Mandal.
8. Ajay Kumar.
9. Mani Lal Yadav.
10. Md. Firoj Alam.
11. Pradip Kumar Sah.
12. Shambhu Prasad Yadav.
13. Mahanand Sah.
14. Laxman Prasad Yadav.
15. Ashok Kumar Bhagat.
16. Suman. ... ...Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand,
At Project Building Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
2. The Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council, Ranchi, New
Co-operative Building, Shyamali Colony, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.-
Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda, P.O., P.S. and District-Godda,
Jharkhand.
4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Godda, P.O. & P.S. and
District-Godda, Jharkhand.
5. The District Superintendent of Education cum District Programme
Officer, Godda, P.O. & P.S. and District-Godda, Jharkhand.
6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Poraiyahat, P.O. & P.S.-
Poraiyahat, District-Godda, Jharkhand. ... ...Respondents
---------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK
For the Petitioners: Mr. Pankaj Kumar Choudhary,Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate.
----------
05/ 10.07.2017Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State as also learned Counsel for the Jharkhand Education Project Council, Ranchi.
2. The petitioners were appointed as Cluster Resource Person (CRP) pursuant to to the scheme of the State Government for promoting the education programmes up-to the Block level, under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that though they have obtained the honorarium/salary but during financial year of 2010-11 the honorarium of the petitioners have been withheld from November, 2010 to March, 2011 @ Rs. 7500/- per month and for the financial year 2011-12 the honorarium of January, 2012 to March, 2012 @ Rs.9000/- and for the period of January, 2013 to March, 2013 @ Rs.9000/- has been withheld it comes to Rs.91,500/- for 2. each petitioner.
4. It is an admitted fact that the selection of the Block Resource Person and the Cluster Resource Person are made by the concerned District Superintendent of Education, being the District Programme Officer under the Jharkhand Education Project.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners were appointed as Cluster Resource Person by the respondent No.5-District Superintendent of Education, Godda and they were being paid their honorarium. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are still working and also getting their honorarium, but they have not been paid their honorarium only for the aforesaid periods and the amount comes to Rs.91,500/- for each petitioner for which only the letters are being written by the respondent No.5 to the respondent No.2 seeking guidelines. It is submitted by learned Counsel, that since the claim of the petitioners is admitted by the respondent No.5, there can be no reason as to why the payment has not been made to the petitioners.
6. Learned Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has drawn the attention of this Court towards the letter No.607 dated 10.6.2008 issued by the respondent No.2, the Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council, Ranchi which shows that in each block, only twenty Resource Persons could be appointed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that due to the appointment of the petitioners in excess of the sanctioned strength, the payment of arrears of some periods could not be made to the petitioners. One letter bearing No.1255 dated 26.6.2012 issued by the respondent No.2, the Principal Secretary cum the Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council, has also been brought on record, which shows that in case, one in one block the Resource Persons are found to be in excess, they may be adjusted in another block, where there may be lesser number of Resource Persons.
7. Learned Counsel for the Jharkhand Education Project Council submitted that the payments have already been released by the Jharkhand Education Project Council in all the financial years as per the budget. Learned Counsel further submits that the payment could not be made to the petitioners due to the appointment of Cluster Resource Person in excess than the allotted budget.
8. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and 3. upon going through the record, I find that there is no denial to the fact that the petitioners were appointed as Cluster Resource Person by the respondent No.5-District Superintendent of Education cum District Programme Officer, Jharkhand Education Project, Godda. There is no denial to the fact that the petitioners are also continuing their services. The fact remains that the petitioners have not been paid their honorarium only for the certain periods as indicated in paragraph No.3 above, for which the total amount comes to Rs.91,500/- for each petitioner and for the rest of the periods, the payment of honorarium has been made to the petitioners.
9. The fact remains that the petitioners have not yet been paid the arrears of their honorarium, in spite of the fact that work has been taken from the petitioners. Since the due payment of the petitioners are admitted by the respondents, the same shall be made, failing which adverse orders may be passed against the concerned respondent.
10. In view of the aforementioned discussions, this Court has no option but to direct the respondent-authorities, particularly, the respondent No.5, the District Superintendent of Education cum District Programme Officer, Jharkhand Education Project, Godda to ensure that the final payment of the arrear of honorarium of the petitioners is made positively within the period of six weeks from the date of production/communication of this order, completing all the process within the same period. It is directed that the respondent No.5 the District Superintendent of Education cum District Programme Officer, Godda shall not draw his salary also, unless the order of this Court is complied with and the payment of arrears of the honorarium is actually made to the petitioners.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Godda, who is also the Chairman of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, as also the District Treasury Officer, by virtue of this post, to ensure that the payment of salary of the respondent No.5 shall not be made, unless it is certified by him that he has already complied with the order of this Court.
12. This writ petition is accordingly, disposed of with the directions as above.
13. Let a copy of this order be also given to the learned Counsel for the State for the needful.
[Dr.S.N.Pathak,J.] P.K.S.