High CourtsDivision Bench(1986) 12 CAL CK 0007

Janhabi Jiban Laha vs State of West Bengal and Others

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 3 December 1986 · Citation: 92 CWN 52

HON’BLE JUDGES
Prabir Kumar Majumdar, J · G.N. Ray, J
CASE NUMBER
F.M.T. No. 373 of 1985

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 416 words

G.N. Ray, J.—Against the order of suspension of the appellant Shri jahnabi Jiban Laha by the authorities of the Bolpur Municipality a writ petition was moved and the said writ petition was disposed of as a contested application being C.O. No. 281(W) of 1985. The learned trial Judge by ah order dated 9th of January, 1985 directed the Bolpur Municipality to pay full salary to the petitioner during the period of suspension and the learned trial Judge has held that as there was no provision under which an employee could be suspended by the authorities of Bolpur Municipality, the writ petitioner will be entitled to full salary during the period of suspension, because the learned trial Judge was of the view that the employer was within its right not to take any services from any employee on payment of salary to such employee. Against the said order the instant appeal has been preferred. An application for interim order has also been made. In our view, the inherent right of the employer not to utilise the service of the employee on the basis of the doctrine of pleasure simply on payment of full salary, is not applicable because, after all, the salary is to be paid from the public fund and it will be against the principle of well being of the Public Undertaking to resort to a luxury of making payment to an employee without taking any service from him. If for good reasons and under the existing service condition''s an employee can be suspended there will be no difficulty in suspending him but where there is no such provision of suspension, it cannot be held that the employee will not render any service but will be paid full salary simply because the concerned authority did not intend to utilise his services. We, therefore, allow this appeal and modify the order of the learned trial Judge to this extent that the present appellant will join his duty and will get full salary as usual and if any amount is outstanding during the period for which he was treated as suspended and his service was not utilised, such arrear salaries and other allowances as would have been admissible to the appellant in the absence of such order of suspension, should be paid to the appellant within two months from today.

The appeal, is accordingly disposed of treating the same as on day''s list and the application is also disposed of accordingly.

Prabir Kumar Majumdar, J.

I agree.