Uday Shankar Pathak vs The State of Bihar and Others

Navin Sinha, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The order dated 4.7.2012 notices the controversy for adjudication as follows:--

(a) Full salary for the period of suspension from 13.7.2000 to 27.10.2002 relying on 1988 PLJR 82 for absence of requisite notice under Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code; and

(b) Whether the petitioner is entitled to salary and other service benefits for the period after suspension and till 17.12.2007.

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Insofar as the former claim is concerned, it states that consequent to punishment in the departmental proceedings, the question of full salary does not arise. Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code has been interpreted in 1988 P.L.J.R. 82 mandating the respondents to give a second show cause notice before withholding full salary. The respondents have not complied the same. The petitioner is held entitled to full salary for the period 13.7.2000 to 27.10.2002. Insofar as the claim for salary thereafter is concerned from 18.10.2002, paragraph-12 of the counter affidavit expressly acknowledges it as the period ''waiting for posting''. If the petitioner was present and available to discharge duties, the respondents could not utilize his services for administrative reasons attributable to them alone, the petitioner cannot be denied salary for the latter period also.

Let the order be complied with by the legitimate payments in accordance with law within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The application is disposed.