Jharkhand High Court
Rajesh Kumar Srivastava vs Animal Husbandary Department on 21 January, 2016
Author: Pramath Patnaik
Bench: Pramath Patnaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 6115 of 2014
-------
Rajesh Kumar Srivastava son of Sri Raghunath Prasad, C/o Sri
Kamal Yadav, Bhutnath Mandir Road, near Anandpuri Chowk,
Harmu, P.O Harmu, P.S. Argora, District: Ranchi.
... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.The Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandary and Fisheries
(Animal Husbandary), Nepal House, Doranda, P.O and P.S
Doranda, District: Ranchi.
3.The Director, Department of Animal Husbandary, Nepal House,
Doranda, P.O and P.S. Doranda, District: Ranchi.
4.The Deputy Secretary to the Government, Department of
Animal Husbandary and Fisheries, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O
and P.S. Doranda, District: Ranchi.
5.The District Animal Husbandary Officer, Dumka, P.O, P.S. and
District: Dumka. ... ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. Navneet Sahay, J.C to G.P. III
------
07/ Dated: 21th January, 2016
Per Pramath Patnaik, J.:
In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith pay arrears of salary to the petitioner from 2011 till date onwards along with statutory interest since he has performed his duties and put his attendance, which has been duly approved by sending absentee statement.
2. The grievances of the petitioner lie in a very narrow compass.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that since the petitioner has performed his duties till termination from services, he is entitled to the salary along with interest for the said period.
4. Mr. Navneet Sahay, J.C to learned G.P. III, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit, wherein it has been averred that according to recommendation of the committee for termination of petitioner from services, the salary of the petitioner has been held up and was asked the show cause. It has further been averred that the matter of petitioner's termination and payment of admissible due salary is still pending and same will be considered after final disposal of W.P. (S) No. 6562 of 2011.
5. Admittedly, there is no dispute that the petitioner worked for the said period, therefore, under normal circumstance the petitioner is entitled for the salary, for the period he has performed his duties, unless the petitioner is found guilty in a departmental proceeding and order of recovery thereto is passed in the said departmental proceeding.
6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if a direction is issued to respondents more particularly respondent no. 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for payment of salary, the grievances of the petitioner shall be redressed.
7. Learned J.C to G.P. III does not raise serious objection to that course of action.
8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, without delving into the nitty gritty of factual aspects, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach respondents, more particularly respondent no. 2, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, who shall consider the case of the petitioner for payment of legally admissible salary and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.
9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Pramath Patnaik, J.) Alankar/-