Raghunath Prasad vs The State of Bihar

Mr. Navin Sinha, J.(Oral)—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if charges were not framed within seven months under Rule-9(7) of the Bihar Government Servants (Civil Services) (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 from the date of suspension, after expiry of seven months the suspension stands invalidated from nativity and the petitioner is entitled to full salary from the date of the original suspension. The order passed by the authorities on 16.10.2012 for payment of salary from 5.3.2009 is therefore not in consonance with the law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the payment of salary from 5.3.2009 to 31.3.2009 only denying salary from the original date of suspension i.e. 6.8.2008 is therefore contrary to the directions of the Court.

Alternately, the petitioner is entitled to full salary at least from 5.11.2008 when he represented that charges had not yet been framed.

Conversely, learned counsel for the State submits that it is not the law laid down in 2009 (4) P.L.J.R. 272 (State of Bihar v. Gyan Kumar Ram). The suspension becomes invalidated after seven months and that invalidation does not operate retrospectively. The suspension remains valid for this period of seven months.

The Court has considered the submissions. The order explicitly states that the suspension stood revoked by operation of law on 5.3.2009. Implicitly it does not accept the submission that the suspension stands invalidated from nativity and on the contrary upholds the suspension for the period till seven months.

The Court is not persuaded to proceed further in the contempt jurisdiction.

The application is disposed.