Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand And Anr vs Dr Amresh Narayan Sinha on 12 April, 2017
Author: D.N. Patel
Bench: D. N. Patel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 556 of 2016
With
I.A. No. 7840 of 2016
With
I.A. No. 8325 of 2016
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry Cooperative Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi ... Appellants Versus Dr. Amresh Narayan Sinha, Son of Late Dr. Ganesh Prasad Sinha, resident of Saha Mansion Aesandey Adarshpuri, Kanke, P.O. & P.S. Kanke, District Ranchi at present touring Veterinary Officer, residing at Sunder Pahari Block, P.O. & PS. Sunder Pahari, District Godda ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA For the Appellants : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, J.C. to G.P.V For the Respondent : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, Advocate Mr. Praful Jojo, Advocate 06/ Dated: 12 April, 2017 th Oral Order Per D.N. Patel, J.:
I.A. No. 7840 of 2016
1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 98 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application especially in paragraph nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7, there are reasonable reasons for condonation of delay. We, therefore, condone the delay of 98 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.
3. Accordingly, I.A. No. 7840 of 2016 is allowed and disposed of.L.P.A. No. 556 of 2016
1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original respondents in W.P.(S) No. 5581 of 2015 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 18th July, 2016 and hence, the original respondents have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.
2
2. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the respondent was involved in criminal cases and hence, the case was instituted in the competent trial court and the respondent (original petitioner) was put under suspension with effect from 14th March, 2012.
3. The respondent (original petitioner) was serving as Veterinary Officer. Later on, suspension was revoked by the appellants vide order dated 6th July, 2015. The said revocation order is also on record of the writ petition.
4. During the period of suspension, as per the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, 50% and thereafter, due to non completion of the departmental proceedings, 75% subsistence allowance was paid to the respondent. Now, suspension has been revoked and as per Rule 97(2) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, the respondent is entitled to full pay and allowances. For the ready reference, Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code reads as under:
"97.(1) When a Government servant who has been dismissed, removed, or suspended, reinstated, the authority competent to order the reinstatement shall consider and make specific order
(a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of his absence from duty, and
(b) Whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty.
(2) Whether the authority mentioned in subrule(1), is of opinion that the Government servant has been fully exonerated, or in the case of suspension, that it was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall be given full pay and allowance to which he would have been entitled has he not been dismissed, removed or suspended, as the case may be. (3) In other cases, the Government servant shall be given such proportion of such pay and allowances as such competent authority may prescribe :
Provided that the payment of allowances under Clause (2) or Clause (3) shall be subject to all other conditions under which such allowance are admissible.
(4) In a case falling under Clause (2) the period of absence from duty shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes. (5) In a case falling under clause the period of absence from duty shall not be treated as a period spent on duty, unless such competent authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated for any specified purpose:
Provided that if the Government servant so desires such authority may direct that the period of absence from duty shall be converted into leave of any kind due and admissible to the Government servant."
(emphasis supplied) 3
5. In view of the aforesaid Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, the respondent is entitled to full pay and allowances. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition preferred by the respondent.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that as the criminal proceedings are pending, the respondent is not entitled to full pay and allowances. This contention is not accepted by this Court in view of the aforesaid Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 and that suspension has already been revoked by the Government vide order 6th July, 2015. The departmental proceedings have not yet been completed and the same are still going on. In such eventuality, as per Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, even if the departmental proceedings are pending, but, when suspension is already revoked by the Government, the delinquentrespondent is always entitled to full pay and allowances.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts, we see no reason to take any view than what is taken by the learned Single Judge while deciding W.P.(S) No. 5581 of 2015 vide order dated 18th July, 2016. There being no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed. I.A. No. 8325 of 2016
Accordingly, this interlocutory application is also dismissed, in view of the final order passed in the Letters Patent Appeal.
(D.N. Patel, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Ajay/ N.A.F.R.