Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Takhat Singh vs State & Ors on 8 September, 2008
Author: Gopal Krishan Vyas
Bench: Gopal Krishan Vyas
(1)
Takhat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
:ORDER:
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2826/2005.
(Takhat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others)
DATE OF ORDER : September 8th, 2008
PRESENT
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gopal Krishan Vyas
_______________________________
Mr. P.S. Bhati for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Choudhary, Addl. Govt. Counsel.
Reportable : BY THE COURT :
In this writ petition, relief is sought that the respondents may be directed to release the due salary for the period of August 1983 to 30.11.1988 and the due amount of privilege leave for 180 days to the petitioner with interest @ 18% per annum. It is further prayed that the respondents may be directed to make payment of interest on the delayed amount of pension @ 18% per annum for about 10 years.
On the date of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner was (2) Takhat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others 75 years old and, during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner died. By order dated 18.07.2006, his legal heirs were brought on record.
The original petitioner Takhat Singh was working with the respondent Department as Assistant Agriculture Extension Officer and he was superannuated when he was working at Panchayat Samiti Mandalgarh. Upon the notice of the writ petition filed for the aforesaid relief, in reply, the respondents admit that salary of the petitioner commencing from August 1983 to November 1988 is due, however, due to non-availability of budget the matter was recommended at the highest level of the Government. When this reply was filed by the respondents, on 09.04.2008, this Court passed the following order :
"Therefore, the original petitioner late Takhat Singh and his family has suffered mental agony because arbitrarily the Government authorities are not making payment of due salary of late Takhat Singh, as such, this Court deem it just and proper to pass an order that till payment of due salary of late Takhat Singh for the period commencing from August, 1983 to November, 1988 is made, the monthly salary of Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Secretariat Jaipur and monthly salary of Director, Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Directorate, Rajasthan, Jaipur shall not be paid and compliance of this order shall be made to this Court on 9th May, 2008.
List this matter on 9th May, 2008 for further hearing and deciding the case finally."
In pursuance of the said order, the amount of salary from (3) Takhat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others September 1983 to November 1988 was paid to the legal representatives/heirs of the original writ petitioner; meaning thereby, the salary of late Shri Takhat Singh was detained for such a long time without any reason, therefore, on 09.05.2008, a specific query was made as to who is responsible for such delay. Then, it is submitted by counsel appearing on behalf of the Panchayati Raj Department that the Panchayati Raj Department is not responsible for payment of salary and Agriculture Department is responsible for not releasing the said amount of salary of late Takhat Singh. On that date, time was sought by the Deputy Government Counsel to file specific reply on the question that who is responsible for non-payment of salary for 20 years of late Takhat Singh.
Today, by way of filing additional affidavit, it is pointed out by the respondents that a Committee was constituted to ascertain the responsibility for non-payment of salary of late Shri Takhat Singh and, in the meeting held on 09.04.2008, it has been resolved that late Shri Takhat Singh failed to get his leave sanctioned for the period commencing from July 1978 to 10.10.1979, therefore, his matter of fixation of pay was not finalized and for 9 years service record of late Shri Takhat Singh remained in his own custody and on 16.07.1997 he deposited his (4) Takhat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others service book in the office of the Panchayat Samiti Mandalgarh. Therefore, late Shri Takhat Singh himself was responsible for non-payment of salary till 1997. The concluding part of the meeting dated 15.08.2008, held under the chairmanship of Addl. Chief Secretary (Development) is as follows :
"प प अभ लख क अनस र श भसह द न क जल ई,78 स 10-
10-79 तक क अवभ क अवक श सव कत नह कर य एव
वतन स"र करण क क य$ क% नह भनपट य त" सव भ लख
एव ररक र* लकर सव भनवत, क ब न% वर* तक घ0मत रह।
अत म3 द न क 16-7-97 क% पच यत सभमभत म णरलगर क
कयल
* य म3 सवय न अपन सव पससतक जम कर ई। इस हत
श भसह सवय सजमम र ह: । कतर एव पच यत र ज तव ग क
इस सब म3 क%ई भयतव नह बनत ह: और गत न म3
तवलमब ह%न क मखय क रण यह रह ह: ।
तबन स03 क स * म3 भन ? श द ए गए दक सव भनव,
ल%कसवक@ क बक य पर न पकरण@ क पच यत र ज एव कतर
तव ग त" अनय तव ग, पर कण कर ततक ल भनसत रण क
क य*व ह कर3 त दक ऐस पनर वत, न ह%। यह भनण*य भलय
गय दक स तव ग कम*च ररय@ क कलय ण स सबभ त
पकरण@ क भनसत रण क पभत बहत सव नश ल रह3 ।"
The above conclusion arrived at by the committee so constituted cannot be accepted because it is the duty of the respondent department either to sanction the leave or to pass order for break in service if no application for leave is filed by the employee. The inaction on the part of the department cannot be attributed to the employee. Further, the conclusion of the (5) Takhat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others committee that the petitioner did not deposit the service record for nine years cannot be accepted because if the service record is lying with the employee then it is the duty of the department to take proper action. So also, this fact was to be incorporated in the reply filed by the respondents but in the reply to the writ petition no such plea has been taken by the respondents. This fact clearly shows that in the meeting to save the skin of the responsible persons wrong fact was submitted by the respondent department.
Be that as it may, even if it is accepted as projected by the committee, then too, the service record was deposited by late Takhat Singh in the office of the Panchayat Samiti Mandalgarh on 16.07.1997, then, why payment of salary was not made to the petitioner and why it is only paid when order was passed by this Court. The respondent Department is under obligation to act in accordance with law and cannot shift its responsibility upon the employee. If any payment of salary was due for the period commencing from September 1983 to November 1988, then it ought to have been paid within time but the reason which is disclosed in the conclusion arrived at in the meeting vide Annex.- R/23, it is revealed that the payment of salary was not made on the ground that the leave of the petitioner for the period from (6) Takhat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others July 1978 to 10.10.1979 had not been got regularized by late Takhat Singh, however, in respect of the period in question commencing from September 1983 to November 1988 there is no denial that the petitioner worked during the said period but salary was not paid to him.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the amount of salary of five years was not paid to the petitioner Takhat Singh and the same remained with the department, therefore, it is fit case in which interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the amount which is now paid to the legal representatives of the late petitioner Takhat Singh in pursuance of the order of this Court should be paid by the respondents. Further, the respondents are under obligation to make fixation of the petitioner's pay in revised pay scale and to issue revised PPO and pay the arrears as per revision of pay scale.
In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. The payment of salary has already been made for the period from September 1983 to October 1988 as ordered by this Court on 09.04.2008, therefore, now the respondents shall pay interest upon the said amount at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date salary of the petitioner became due and further revise the petitioner's pay, if not already revised, and pay arrears to the legal heirs of (7) Takhat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others late Takhat Singh within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
The petitioner late Takhat Singh and his family have been harassed by the respondents and compelled to file writ petition for due payment of salary which is admittedly not paid for 20 years and now paid after orders passed by this Court, therefore, in the above facts and circumstances, the respondents are saddled with cost of Rs.11,000/-.
(Gopal Krishan Vyas) J.
Ojha, a.