Skip to content


Chandra Shekhar Manjhi Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided On
AppellantChandra Shekhar Manjhi
RespondentState of Jharkhand and Ors
Excerpt:
.....of planning and development, government of jharkhand, as contained in annexure-18 to the writ application, whereby the petitioner's claim for salary for the period 1.11.2000 to 8.8.2003 has been rejected. in the said letter, it is stated that from 10.2.2003 to 12.6.2003, the petitioner was waiting for his posting in the state of jharkhand, in its department of planning and development and for the rest period, he was posted in the state of bihar. it is clearly stated in the letter that after bifurcation of the state, the petitioner had given his joining in the state of jharkhand, only in the year 2004, whereas the claim of the salary of the petitioner related to prior to that and the same could not be entertained by the state of jharkhand.3. the petitioner at the time of.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 1166 of 2012 Chandra Shekhar Manjhi ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. Secretary, Planning & Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

3. Director of Economics & Statistics, Jharkhand, Ranchi.

4. Under Secretary, Planning & Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

5. The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra. .…. … Respondents -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mrs. Neelam Tiwary, JC to Sr.S.C.-I -------- 4/ 14.09.2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent State.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by letter No. 264 dated 17.2.2012 issued to him by the respondent No.4, Under Secretary, Department of Planning and Development, Government of Jharkhand, as contained in Annexure-18 to the writ application, whereby the petitioner's claim for salary for the period 1.11.2000 to 8.8.2003 has been rejected. In the said letter, it is stated that from 10.2.2003 to 12.6.2003, the petitioner was waiting for his posting in the State of Jharkhand, in its Department of Planning and Development and for the rest period, he was posted in the State of Bihar. It is clearly stated in the letter that after bifurcation of the State, the petitioner had given his joining in the State of Jharkhand, only in the year 2004, whereas the claim of the salary of the petitioner related to prior to that and the same could not be entertained by the State of Jharkhand.

3. The petitioner at the time of bifurcation of the State of Bihar, i.e., on 15.11.2000, was posted as Child Development Project Officer, Tandwa in the district of Chatra. While holding the post of Child Development Project Officer, Tandwa, in the district of Chatra, the petitioner was also given the additional charge of BDO, Patthalgaddha by the order issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, as contained in Memo No. 408 dated 4.8.2000 (Annexure-4 to the writ application). On 11.10.2000, a notification was issued, by which, the services of the petitioner and four others were repatriated to the parent Department of Planning and Development, in the State of Bihar. The petitioner handed over the charge of Child Development Project Officer, Tandwa on 1.11.2000, but he claims to continue to work on the additional posts in the State of Jharkhand. -2- 4. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ application before the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 12600 of 2003, claiming his salary from 1.11.2000 to 22.12.2000 and again from the period 1.4.2001 to 8.8.2003. The said writ application was disposed of by the Patna High Court by the order contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application, whereby it was found that the petitioner could not have any claim against the State of Bihar, for the period 15.11.2000 to 22.12.2000 and again from 1.4.2001 to 16.6.2003, for which the petitioner was given the liberty to move before the High Court of Jharkhand.

5. The petitioner thereafter gave his representation to the State Government and by the impugned letter dated 17.2.2012 as contained in Annexure-18 to the writ application, the petitioner has been informed that the petitioner joined the State of Jharkhand, after re-allocation of the State of Jharkhand only in the year 2004, and prior to that he was not working in the State of Jharkhand, though for the period 10.2.2003 to 12.6.2003 he was awaiting posting in the parent Department of Planning and Development. In other words, the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner was working as BDO, Patthalgaddha, pursuant to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application, has not been acknowledged in the impugned letter No. 264 dated 17.2.2012 issued by the respondent No.4.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for the said period, the petitioner had worked as BDO, Patthalgaddha and two other additional posts and accordingly, the salary for that period to the petitioner is payable by the State of Jharkhand.

7. As against this, the stand of the respondent State is that the petitioner handed over the charge of Child Development Project Officer on 1.11.2000 and the additional charges automatically came to end. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer of the petitioner.

8. Having heard learned counsels for both the parties and upon going through the record, I find that there is dispute of fact whether the petitioner had worked in the State of Jharkhand for the period 1.11.2000 to 8.8.2013. The stand of the State of Jharkhand is that the petitioner had not worked in the State of Jharkhand and he had been relieved for joining in the State of Bihar and thereafter he joined the State of Jharkhand upon re-allocation of the State of Jharkhand only in the year 2004, which fact is being disputed by the petitioner. -3- This disputed question of facts cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction.

9. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is directed to file his representation before the respondent No.4, the Under Secretary to the Government, Department of Planning and Development, who had earlier rejected the claim of the petitioner, bringing before him in detail the periods during which the petitioner claimed to work in the State of Jharkhand on additional charges, along with the supporting documents. The respondent No.4 shall dispose of the representation of the petitioner after giving him a personal hearing, positively within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation with a reasoned order. If it is found that the petitioner had legally and actually worked in the State of Jharkhand, for the period as claimed by the petitioner, the salary of the petitioner for that period shall also be released. If the claim of the petitioner is not found to be genuine, the reasoned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner shall be passed by the respondent No.4.

10. This writ application stands disposed of with the directions as above. ( H. C. Mishra, J.) R.Kr.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //