Deo Kumar Sahu vs State of Jharkhand

Pramath Patnaik, J.—Initially the writ petition was filed for payment of direction to the respondents to release entire salary from May, 2004 till date and for direction upon the respondent authorities to pay full salary along with interest.

During pendency of the writ application, I.A. No. 6329 of 2014 has been filed by the petitioner, praying inter alia for quashing of the order dated 01.08.2006 passed by respondent no.2, wherein it has been decided to make payment of only 75% of admissible salary to the petitioner while withholding balance of 25% salary.

The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner was appointed in service on 03.03.1981 on the post of Assistant Teacher in Project Kartik Oraon High School, Litatoli, Gumla. Firstly, the petitioner was appointed by the Managing Committee and thereafter, when the school was taken over by the State, he became teacher in that Government running school i.e. Kartik Oraon High School.

In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the earlier petitioner had filed C.W.J.C No. 1753 of 1985 before this Hon�ble Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 19.12.1985 and the matter was remitted to the District Education Officer. Pursuant to the order of this Hon�ble Court, joining report of the petitioner was accepted by the District Education Officer vide order dated 21.01.1986. On 01.08.2006, during pendency of the enquiry, it was decided by the respondent authority to make payment of only 75% of the admissible salary to the petitioner, which appears at serial no. 9 vide Annexure-4 to the I.A. No. 6329 of 2014. It has further been contended that the petitioner is continuing in service on the said post uninterruptedly.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by Annexures-5, 5/1 and 6 of the I.A. No. 6329 of 2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that if a direction be issued to the respondents to dispose of the matter, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the grievance of the petitioner shall be redressed.

Mrs. Richa Sanchita, S.C-V appearing for the respondents-State on instruction has submitted that if the writ petition is disposed of in the light of the aforesaid decisions, she does not have any objection to that effect.

Considering the limited submission made by the counsel for the respective parties, without delving into the merit of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of, with direction to the respondents to conclude the enquiry stated to be pending against the petitioner within a period of one month from today, and meanwhile the Director, Secondary Education, Gumla may release 100% payment of salary of the petitioner. However, this order shall not be construed to mean that appointment of the petitioner is found to be valid/legal by this Court.

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.