Jharkhand High Court
Md. Muslim Khan vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 22 February, 2008
Equivalent citations: [2008(2)JCR35(JHR)]
Author: R.K. Merathia
Bench: R.K. Merathia
ORDER R.K. Merathia, J.
1. The petitioner claims time bound promotion, increments and matriculate trained pay scale.
2. According to the petitioner, he became matriculate trained in the year, 1967-69 during the service period from Basic Training School, Simarta. He also entitled for revised pay scale since 1993 as other persons are getting matriculate trained pay scale.
3. The stand of the respondents in the counter-affidavit is that the petitioner was suspended by the District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh vide Memo No. 6161 dated 16.10.1993. Departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. Though the charges were not established, the enquiry officer recommended to severely warn the petitioner to improve the roll strength of the students. The Committee resolved in the meeting held on 27.6.1996 that the petitioner be reinstated and transferred to some other place. It was further resolved that the petitioner will not get anything more than the subsistence allowance during the suspension period. The petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 252 of 2002 to pay the salary during the period of suspension i.e. from 13.10.1993 to 27.6.1996. The petitioner was given liberty to approach the District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh and decision in respect of payment of salary for the period of suspension was to be taken as per Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code and communicated to the petitioner within six months from the date of representation as may be preferred by him.
4. It appears that by office order contained in Memo No. 2176/Hazaribagh dated 5.6.2002 issued from the office of the District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh, it was ordered that the petitioner will only get subsistence allowance during the said period. By filing supplementary affidavit and reply to the counter-affidavit, the petitioner has sought to challenge the said order.
5. It appears that the impugned order (Annexure-2) was passed in the light of Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code, Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code reads as under:
97. (1) When a Government servant who has been dismissed, removed or suspended, reinstated, the authority competent to order the reinstatement shall consider and make specific order-
(a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of his absence from duty; and
(b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty.
(2) Where the authority mentioned in Sub-rule (1), is on opinion that the Government servant has been fully exonerated, or in the case of suspension, that it was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall be given full pay and allowance to which he would have been entitled has he not been dismissed, removed or suspended, as the case may be.
(3) In other cases, the Government servant shall be given such proportion of such pay and allowances as such competent authority may prescribe:
Provided that the payment of allowances under Clause (2) or Clause (3) shall be subject to all other conditions under which such allowance are admissible.
(4) In a case falling under Clause (2) the period of absence from duty shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes.
(5) In case falling under clause 'the period of absence from duty shall not be treated as a period spent on duty, unless such competent authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated for any specified purpose:
Provided that if the Government servant so desires such authority may direct that the period of absence from duty shall be converted into leave of any kind due and admissible to the Government servant.
6. From the reading of the said rule, it is clear that the competent authority has been given discretion to pass orders with regard to payment of pay etc. during the suspension period. Even in the case of reinstatement a Government servant does not acquire right to get full pay during the suspension period. It would appear from the aforesaid facts that the Committee/competent authority took a decision not to pay anything more than the subsistence allowance during the suspension period.
7. So far as the claim of the petitioner with regard to time bound promotion, increments and matriculate trained pay scale, it is said in the counter-affidavit that those were not allowed during the period of suspension from 16.10.1993 to 31.10.1996 but it is not said what would be the position after the petitioner's reinstatement.
8 In the circumstances, I have left with no option than to remit the matter to the District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh (respondent No. 2) before whom the petitioner is given liberty to file representation raising his claims. The respondent No. 2 or the Committee whoever is competent, will pass order on such representation. If any of the claims is found tenable, the benefit should be given to the petitioner. If any claim/part of it is not found tenable, reasons thereof should be communicated to the petitioner. This exercise should be completed within two months from the date of filing of petitioner's representation. It is made clear that so far as the order of paying only subsistence allowance during the suspension period is concerned, the same is confirmed and so far as the other claims are concerned, this Court has not gone into the merits of such claims.
9. with these observations and directions/this writ petition is disposed of. However, no costs.