Bishwanath Mahato and Others vs State of Jharkhand

Tapen Sen, J.—Heard Mr. H.K. Mahato, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Government Advocate.

The grievance of the writ petitioners in the instant case is that notwithstanding a specific direction having been made by this Court in an earlier writ petition on 22.9.2000 in CWJC No. 3283 of 2000 (R), the respondents totally veered off at a tangent and issued the order dated 25.4.2001 using words which are totally incorrect and erroneous on the fact of the record. According to the writ petitioners, they were appointed in the year 1995 and from January, 1996 the petitioner Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were not given any salary and similarly from May, 1996 the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 were not paid their respective salary.

The petitioners have asserted that they were appointed as Village Extension Worker pursuant to an advertisement issued in 1990 whereas the respondents have stated that they were appointed under the World Bank Agricultural Extension Project and the same project came to an end in July, 1993 itself. Being aggrieved by the non-payment of salary, the writ petitioners came before this Court in the earlier writ petition indicated above and this Court remanded the matter to the Agricultural Production Commissioner, Government of Bihar to determine the question relating to payment of salary of the petitioners and, if so required, on their adjustment against one or other vacant post. As a consequence of the coming into force of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 the petitioner represented before the appropriate authority of the State of Jharkhand and it appears that the said authority has gone to the extent of totally doubting the veracity and authenticity of the appointment of the petitioners. He has further stated that the aforesaid World Bank Scheme ended in the year 1993 and therefore he could not be appointed in the year 1995.

After having gone through the pleadings made in the writ application and also upon consideration of different records brought on record, this Court feels that the appropriate authority of the State of Jharkhand is perhaps not aware of the Annexure 5 and 6 which goes to show that even after 1997-98, the aforesaid scheme was in existence and had been duly approved. In that view of the matter, it appears that matter requires a fresh consideration and respondents would be well advised to look into all documents pertaining to this matter before coming to a conclusion. If some amount is found payable, which has accrued to the petitioners, that right cannot be taken away unless all relevant records are looked into and dealt with in accordance with law.

In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded once again to the Respondent No. 2 (The Secretary-cum-Agricultural Production Commissioner, State of Jharkhand) who shall deal and look into the matter in accordance with law after taking into consideration the observations made aforesaid. He shall pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed off.