Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Kameshwar Pal Singh vs D G P And Ors on 28 May, 2013
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER 1.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 18598/2012 Kameshwar Pal Singh versus Director General of Police & ors 2.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 18621/2012 Pannal Lal versus Director General of Police & ors 28.5.2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr MM Mehrishi for petitioners Mrs Naina Saraf for Municipal Corporation, Jaipur-resp No.3 Mr MF Baig for respondents No.1 and 2 Mr Jagrup Singh Yadav, Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Jaipur Mr Ashok Singh, Director (Law), Municipal Council, Jaipur BY THE COURT:
With consent of the parties, both the writ petitions have been heard finally.
Pursuant to the directions of this court, Chief Executive Officer of the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur is present in the court. The CEO was called as the reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 Police Department shows non-availability of Last Pay Certificate (LPC) by the respondent No.3-Municipal Corporation enabling them to make payment of salary to the petitioners.
Learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation submits that LPC was sent, however, period of absence w.e.f. 6.7.2011 till 17.1.2012 exist in case of petitioner-Kameshwar Pal Singh and from 6.7.2011 till 14.12.2011 in the case of petitioner Panna Lal inasmuch as after relieving of the petitioner Kameshwar Pal Singh on 6.7.2011, he joined the post again with the Municipal Corporation on 4.12.2011 and then again relieved on 18.1.2012. Petitioner remained on medical leave during the intervening period.
Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 Police Department submits that LPC has not been received by the department despite several reminders to the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur thus salary could not be released in favour of the petitioners for the aforesaid reason only. If the LPC is made available, salary of the petitioners for the period other than of absence would be released. It is in view of the fact that charge sheet has been served to the petitioner regarding period of absence. In fact, after relieving by the Municipal Corporation on 6.7.2011, petitioner should not have been allowed to join again in the Municipal Corporation because even if the leave application has to be considered, it can be by the parent department as per rule 155 of the Rajasthan Service Rules thus Municipal Corporation is not having authority to deal with any issue pertaining to petitioners after their relieving at the first instance.
Learned counsel for petitioners, on the other hand, submits that even if dispute exists regarding medical leave, since charge sheet has already been served followed by completion of enquiry against petitioner, respondents may be directed to pay salary for the period not in dispute. Copy of the LPC may be handed over to the parent department herein itself.
I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
The dispute regarding non-payment of salary is due to many fold reasons attributed to the respondents i.e. Municipal Corporation so as the Police Department. After relieving the petitioners on 6.7.2011, Municipal Corporation should not have accepted their joining later on. This is more so when an employee already relieved cannot again join the same organisation to which he was earlier sent on deputation. Petitioners have shown justification to give joining as relieving orders were not served on them. I am not required to go into those disputes because charge sheet for absence has already been served and would be dealt with by the department and, as per statement of learned counsel for petitioners, enquiry is already complete.
During course of the arguments, learned counsel for Municipal Corporation has shown copy of the LPC issued in favour of the petitioner on 6.7.2011 thus copy thereof has been given to learned counsel for the Police Department so that salary of the petitioner may be released based on the said LPC for the period other than disputed.
In view of above, salary of the petitioners may be released within fifteen days from today. So far as issue of absence is concerned, if respondents have completed the enquiry then they may take final decision in accordance with rules within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If enquiry has not been concluded, then it may be concluded expeditiously.
With the aforesaid directions/ observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
bnsharma All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW