RAMA NAND SINGH vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to pay the annual increment on salary of the petitioner for

the period from 1995 to 2002.

Factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Messenger in Bihar State Road Transport

Corporation in the year, 1965 by the Govt. of Bihar. In the year, 1993, a Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and order of

punishment was inflicted against him, which reads as follows :(a) Stoppage of one annual increment.

(b) Censure for the future

(c) Nothing extra will be paid to the petitioner for his suspension period but the suspension period will be counted in calculation of GPF, annual

increment, gratuity.

Thereafter, the departmental proceeding was dropped. Though the departmental proceeding was closed and the punishment regarding stoppage of one

annual increment was set aside vide order dated 28.02.1996 by the Appellate Authority, but the respondents have not paid the benefit of annual

increment after retirement of the petitioner. The petitioner superannuated from his services on 31.01.2002 from Agrico Depot, Jamshedpur Division of

Bihar State Road Transport Corporation.

It is specific case of the petitioner that as the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation was facing financial crunch, the retiral benefits of the petitioner

were not paid to him, it was only after intervention of the Hon'ble Apex Court and after distribution of assets and liability of the State of Bihar and

Jharkhand, the employees, who were working in the State of erstwhile Bihar and resident of State of Jharkhand were directed to pay the retiral

benefits and arrears of salary. The petitioner is aggrieved by the non-payment of annual increment on salary, as the same was not paid to him though

the punishment order was set aside by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner made several representation before the respondents, but the same was

not considered, neither any order was passed nor any single penny has been received by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to

move this Court for redressal of his grievances.

Mr. Somitra Baroi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for one annual increment on his salary

as the punishment order was set aside by the Appellate Authority. Learned counsel further argues that the action of the respondents in withholding the

annual increment of the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law.

Mr. Ajit Kumar and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents, submit that in view of the directions of the Hon'ble

Apex Court everything has been paid to the petitioner and so far as payment of the one annual increment is concerned, it was specific direction of the

Hon'ble Apex Court that employees are entitled only for arrears of salary and retiral benefits and not for increment payable in the arrears of salary or

the retiral benefits and the respondents have rightly not considered the case of the petitioner.

Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and perusal of records, this Court is of the considered view that the

petitioner has received everything in view of the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. As the said Corporation was itself facing financial crunch, the

respondentState of Bihar was not in a position to pay salary/retiral benefits to its employees and it was only after intervention of the Hon'ble Apex

Court and after distribution of the assets and liabilities, the employees of the State of Bihar as well as State of Jharkhand, who were employees of the

Road Transport Corporation were paid salary as well as retiral benefits. However, if the petitioner is entitled for annual increment in view of the

package programme, the same shall be extended to him. If the petitioner prefers a fresh representation, a reasoned order shall be passed keeping into

consideration the package programme as per the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

Needless to say that if the petitioner files a fresh representation, the same shall be disposed of within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of

such representation. If the petitioner is found entitled for payment, the same shall be extended within a further period of three weeks in view of

package programme and if the petitioner is not found entitled, a reasoned order shall be passed on the representation of the petitioner and same shall

be communicated to him.

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

Â