Jharkhand High Court
Pankaj Kumar Patra & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 8 April, 2010
Equivalent citations: 2010 LAB. I. C. (NOC) 1334 (JHAR.), 2010 (3) AIR JHAR R 822
Author: D.G.R. Patnaik
Bench: D.G.R. Patnaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P.(S) No. 4426 of 2007
...
1. Pankaj Kumar Patra
2. Tapas Kumar Patra ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Water Resources Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Administrator, Subarnrekha Multipurpose Project,
Adityapur, Jamshedpur, Seraikella-Kharsawan
4. Director, Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation, Subarnrekha
Project, Adityapur, Seraikella-Kharsawan
5. Superintending Engineer, Subarnrekha Project Unit,
Adityapur, Seraikella-Kharsawan ... Respondents
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. A.K.Sahani, Advocate
For the Respondents : - J.C. to G.P.-II.
...
5/08.04.2010Heard counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners in this writ application had initially prayed for a direction upon the respondents to accept their joining on the post of Draftsman Grade-II and Dresser respectively and pay them all the consequential monetary benefits within a specified period.
3. From the rival submissions the facts which emerge are that the petitioners and their family members happen to be persons who were displaced consequent upon the acquisition of their lands. Such acquisition was made way back in the year 1985-86. After recognizing the petitioners' fathers as the displaced persons, Vikas Pustika was opened in their names and was issued to them and in addition, they were provided employment on 30.06.1990.
Subsequently, in 1994 not only was the Vikas Pustika withdrawn but their services were also terminated.
4. The aggrieved persons thereupon preferred a writ application before this Court and pursuant to the directions passed in the writ application, the respondents though restored the Vikas Pustika to the displaced persons, but did not take any decision promptly regarding restoration of the employment to the petitioners.
5. The matter was again pursued by the aggrieved persons before this Court by way of a writ application. Upon hearing the parties, this Court remitted the matter to the concerned authorities of the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for restoration of their services. When in spite of the directions, no positive result was forthcoming, the petitioners have filed the present writ application.
6. It is informed that during the pendency of this writ application, the cases of both the displaced persons were considered by the concerned authorities and by letters, Anexure-O and Annexure-P dated 19.03.2008 and 07.05.2008 respectively, the earlier orders of termination of service, were withdrawn and the petitioners were allowed to be reinstated in service. However, no specific observation was recorded regarding the claim for salary and consequential monetary benefits for the period during which the displaced persons were kept out of service.
7. It however appears from the statements contained in paragraph-15 of the counter affidavit of the respondents, that the claim for salary and other consequential monetary benefits which may have accrued during the period when the petitioners were kept out of service, was reserved for consideration after the petitioners submit their joining in service.
8. It is informed by the counsel for the petitioners that both the petitioners have joined their respective postings and they are getting their present salary, but no decision has been taken/communicated to them regarding their claim for salary and other consequential monetary benefits for the period when they were kept out of service.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per the statements contained in Paragraph-15 of the counter affidavit, it appears that both the petitioners were considered entitled for the monetary benefits which would have accrued to them for the period when they were kept out of service.
10. Even though the counsel for the Respondents would not specifically concede but as per settled principle of law, the claim of the petitioners for salary and other consequential monetary benefits for the period when they were kept out of service, has to be treated as a genuine and reasonable claim in view of the fact that though initially the respondents had terminated the services of the petitioners, but later, the order of termination was recalled by them. The obvious inference is that the concerned authorities of the respondents had reconciled to the fact that the termination was improper. As a result of the termination, however the petitioners were kept out of service although they were not only entitled to continue in service but they had all along been offering their services. The petitioners cannot therefore be subjected to any detriment for the fault of the respondents and they cannot be denied the benefits of the salary which they would have received, had they not been kept out of service without any fault on their part.
11. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, this application is disposed of with a direction to the concerned authorities of the respondents, in particular to the Respondent No. 3, to take an appropriate decision on the petitioners' claim for salary and other consequential monetary benefits which would have accrued to them during the period they were kept out of service and after assessing the payable amounts within a period of two months from the date of this order, pay the same within one month from the date of assessment.
Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondents.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.) Birendra/