Patna High Court - Orders
Umesh Kumar Sinha vs The State Of Bihar &O Rs on 3 September, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar
Bench: Rakesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9013 of 2008
==================================================
Umesh Kumar Sinha son of late Sudarshan Lal, resident of East
Malahi Pakri, Kankarbagh, P.S.-Patrakar Nagar, Distt-Patna.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
2. The Municipal Commissioner, Gaya Municipal Corporation,
Gaya, Bihar.
3. The Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation,
Patna.
4. The Secretary, Nagar Vikas and Awas Department, New
Secretariat, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Additional Municipal Commissioner, Gaya Municipal
Corporation, Gaya.
6. The Administrator, Gaya Municipal Corporation, Gaya.
7. The Administrator, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna.
.... .... Respondents
==================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajoy Kr.Chakraborty
Mr. Krishna Murari Rawt
For the Respondent/s :
Mr. (AC to GA-2)
Mr. Ravindra Kr.Priyadarshi
Mr. Ranjit Kumar Pandey
==================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
8. 03-09-2013Heard Sri Ajoy Kumar Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.C. to Govt. Advocate - II, who appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 & 4/State, Sri Ravindra Kumar Priyadarshi, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 5 & 6/Gaya Municipal Corporation and Sri Ranjit Kumar Pandey, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of respondent 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.9013 of 2008 (8) dt.03-09-2013 2/6 nos. 3 & 7/Patna Municipal Corporation.
The petitioner, who is Class III employee of Gaya Municipal Corporation, has made a prayer for directing the respondents to pay his salary from the month of September, 2004 to January, 2008. The petitioner, on humanitarian ground with the consent of Patna Municipal Corporation, was deputed in the Patna Municipal Corporation in the year 2000 itself and he remained there on an agreement entered in between the Gaya Municipal Corporation and the Patna Municipal Corporation, which was approved by respondent no. 4 i.e. Secretary, Nagar Vikas and Awas Department, Govt. of Bihar. The petitioner subsequently returned to his parent organization i.e. Gaya Municipal Corporation. It has been claimed that from September, 2004 to January, 2008, he was not paid his salary. It has further been clarified that during the deputation period at Patna Municipal Corporation, the Patna Municipal Corporation was required to provide absentee report to the Gaya Municipal Corporation and thereafter, Gaya Municipal Corporation was required to pay his salary. 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.9013 of 2008 (8) dt.03-09-2013 3/6 Despite the fact that formalities were completed by the Patna Municipal Corporation, the Gaya Municipal Corporation has never taken any decision to clear the dues of the petitioner and as such, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition.
In this case, counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondents/Patna Municipal Corporation as well as respondents/Gaya Municipal Corporation. It has been stated by respondents/Patna Municipal Corporation that the petitioner since had become disabled and proposed to be deputed in Patna Municipal Corporation, the Patna Municipal Corporation gave 'No Objection' for his deputation in Patna Municipal Corporation, but the payment of salary to the petitioner was required to be made by the Gaya Municipal Corporation on the basis of absentee report provided by the Patna Municipal Corporation. According to respondents/Patna Municipal Corporation, Gaya Municipal Corporation accepted the terms and conditions of Patna Municipal Corporation, as indicated in Annexure '2/1' to the writ petition. The said proposal was 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.9013 of 2008 (8) dt.03-09-2013 4/6 approved by Urban Development Department, Bihar, purely on humanitarian ground (Annexure '2/2'). Thereafter, the petitioner gave his joining in Patna Municipal Corporation on 08-02-2000 and subsequently, he was relieved in the year 2008. Learned counsel for Patna Municipal Corporation asserts that absentee report of the petitioner for the period of deputation had already been sent to the Gaya Municipal Corporation. It has also been asserted in paragraph 7 of the writ petition that earlier on the basis of absentee report, the petitioner was paid salary by the respondent/Gaya Municipal Corporation.
Sri R.K.Priyadarshi, learned counsel for respondents/Gaya Municipal Corporation submits that the then Administrator of Gaya Municipal Corporation had committed mistake and as such, incorrect and illegal order was passed, which has been subsequently rectified in the year 2007 and petitioner's deputation to Patna Municipal Corporation was cancelled. Sri Priyadarshi, while referring to paragraph no. 10 to its counter affidavit, submits that decision has also been taken by the Gaya Municipal 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.9013 of 2008 (8) dt.03-09-2013 5/6 Corporation that payment made during the deputation period is recoverable from the Patna Municipal Corporation and demand can be raised from the Patna Municipal Corporation.
Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the petitioner, with the consent of Gaya Municipal Corporation and Patna Municipal Corporation, discharged his duty at Patna Municipal corporation and for the period i.e. September, 2004 to January, 2008, the petitioner has not been paid his salary. The outstanding of the petitioner for the aforesaid period is not in dispute. Once there is no dispute that petitioner has discharged his duty and he has not been paid his due salary, it hardly matter as to whether earlier Administrator of Gaya Municipal Corporation had committed any mistake or not. The decision of the Gaya Municipal Corporation as well as the Patna Municipal Corporation to accommodate the petitioner on humanitarian ground on deputation in the Patna Municipal Corporation finds support from the approval of the Govt. of Bihar. Once with the approval of the State Govt. and with 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.9013 of 2008 (8) dt.03-09-2013 6/6 the consent of Gaya Municipal Corporation, the petitioner had discharged his duty, he is entitled to claim his salary, as per agreement entered in between the Patna Municipal Corporation and the Gaya Municipal Corporation, from the Gaya Municipal Corporation. The Gaya Municipal Corporation may take step for recovery of said amount from the Patna Municipal Corporation, but on the said plea, the petitioner may not be debarred further from getting his entire salary for the aforesaid period.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed with a direction to respondent/Gaya Municipal Corporation, particularly; respondent no. 2 to take all steps so that the salary of the petitioner for the period from September, 2004 to January, 2008 may be calculated and paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
With above observation and direction, the writ petition stands allowed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay