Asha Kumari Pathak vs Education on 30 August, 2012

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Asha Kumari Pathak vs Education on 30 August, 2012

Bench: Alok Singh

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI 
                    W.P.(S) No. 3942 of 2012
                                     
         Asha Kumari Pathak                          ...             ...       ...      Petitioner
                                      Versus
         1. The State of Jharkhand 
         2. The CommissionercumSecretary, Primary,
             Secondary and Mass Education Dept., Ranchi
         3. The Director, Primary, Secondary and Mass 
             Education Department, Ranchi           ...              ...     ...      Respondents

         CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH

         For the Petitioner            : Mr. Awanish Ranjan Mishra, Advocate
         For the State                 : Mr. Arbind Kumar, J.C. to G.P. II
                                              

02/30.08.2012

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was absorbed, vide letter dated 24.07.2007 in the government service. He further submits that petitioner has not been paid salary from 16.05.2001 till she was absorbed on 24.07.2007. He further contends that this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2774 of 2004 (Zahid Hussain & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.) decided on 26.03.2010, has directed to pay the salary with effect from 16.05.2001 till the absorption in service. He further contends that since petitioner is similarly situated employee, therefore, benefit of the judgment dated 26.03.2010 in the case of Zahid Hussain & Ors. (supra) (Annexure 12 to the writ petition) should be extended in favour of the petitioner as well.

Mr. Arbind Kumar, J.C. to G.P. II, submits that let petitioner move a detailed representation before Respondent No. 3 within 30 days, annexing therewith copy of the judgment in the case of Zahid Hussain & Ors. (supra). Respondent No. 3 shall examine the case of the petitioner and if he finds that petitioner is also similarly situated employee, then the benefit of the judgment may be extended in favour of the petitioner as well.

Accordingly, present petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to move a detailed representation before Respondent No. 3, annexing therewith copy of the judgment of this Court in the case of Zahid Hussain & Ors. (supra), claiming the benefit of the judgment within 30 days from today. Respondent No. 3 shall examine as to whether petitioner is similarly situated employee and, if yes, shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law, extending the benefit of the judgment of this Court in favour of the petitioner as well. Entire exercise shall be completed within 60 days from the date, representation is moved before Respondent No. 3. Monetary benefit, if found payable, shall be paid in favour of the petitioner within 90 days thereafter. If payment is not made within 90 days, petitioner shall also be paid interest @ 5% per annum, as directed by this Court in the case of Zahid Hussain & Ors. (supra).

(Alok Singh, J.) Manish

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court