1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 6337 of 2013 … Sita Ram Singh, son of Late Ramavtar Singh, resident of Village - Rampur Tola, Post Office- Yogiara, Police Station – Pupri, District – Sitamarhi, (Bihar) . … Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The State of Bihar 3. Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Police Head Quarter, Post Office & Police Station – Dhurwa and District – Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at Doranda, Post Office-Doranda & Police Station - Doranda, District – Ranchi (Jharkhand).
5. Accountant General, Bihar, Patna, Post Office - Mahalekhakar Bhawan, Police Station - Patna, District-Patna (Bihar).
6. Senior Superintendent of Police, Bokaro, Post Office and Police Station- Bokaro Steel City and District – Bokaro, (Jharkhand). … Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK. … For the Petitioner : - Mr. Birju Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent-State of Jharkhand : - J.C. to A.A.G. For the Respondent-State of Bihar : - Mr. S.P. Roy, J.C. to G.A. (Bihar). For the Respondent-Accountant General : - Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, Advocate. … C.A.V. On: -04.07.2016 Delivered On: - 28/10/2016 … Per Pramath Patnaik, J.:
1. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay the arrears of salary for the period between 13.10.1986 to 23.11.1989, during which the petitioner was suspended and subsequently terminated and the petitioner has further prayed for a direction to pay the retiral benefits, to the petitioner, who has superannuated on 30.11.2012.
2. The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application is that the petitioner was appointed as Constable in District Police at Patna on 01.07.1971. Thereafter, in the year 1973, the petitioner was transferred to Ranchi and he continued till 1986 and subsequently transferred to Bokaro District Police from 1986 to 1996. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted in different places in the State of Bihar and the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2012 from the District of Khagariya. While the petitioner was posted as Constable in the District Police, Bokaro, he was put under 2 suspension on 13.10.1986 and a Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, which culminated into dismissal of the services of the petitioner vide order dated 30.10.1987. A criminal case was lodged against the petitioner under Sections 354, 376 and 511 and a Departmental Proceeding was also initiated against him on the self same ground. On the basis of the Criminal Case, the petitioner was put under suspension and a Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, which culminated into dismissal of the services of the petitioner, which was challenged by the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 2055 of 1987 (R) against the order of dismissal and this Court vide its order dated 06.01.1988 directed the Appellate Authority to dispose of the Appeal filed by the petitioner within stipulated time, as evident from Annexure-1 series to the writ petition and as per the direction of the Appellate Authority, a fresh proceeding was initiated and the petitioner was reinstated in service and subsequently in the year 1993 the petitioner was acquitted from criminal case by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro, vide its judgment dated 08.06.1993, as per Annexure-2. In the year 2012, vide Memo dated 20.12.2012, the Superintendent of Police, Khagariya sought information from the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro, as to how the period of suspension and the period of dismissal of the petitioner would be treated for grant of pensionary benefits since there is no mention in the service book of the petitioner as per Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in not taking the decision, pertaining to payment of salary, during the period of suspension and dismissal in view of the memo dated 20.12.2012, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Khagariya, the petitioner, left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, has been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
3. Heard Mr. Birju Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned J.C. to A.A.G. for the respondent-State of Jharkhand and Mr. S.P. Roy, learned G.A. (Bihar) for the Respondent-State of Bihar as 3 well as Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, learned counsel for the Respondent Accountant General.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the writ application, I.A. No. 3178 of 2016 has been filed, wherein, amendment of the original writ petition was prayed for and vide order dated 19.05.2016, learned counsel for the respondents was granted time for filing reply to the aforesaid I.A. and also, the learned counsel for the Respondent-State of Bihar was directed to file counter affidavit and considering the submissions, made therein, I.A. No. 3178 of 2006 was allowed on 04.07.2016 and I.A. was treated as part of the main writ application. In the said Interlocutory application, order dated 21.01.2016 was sought to be quashed. In the said order, the arrears of salary and other allowances for the period, during which, the petitioner was suspended and subsequently terminated from services has been denied on the basis of ‘No Work No Pay' Rule. Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing, has submitted that the action of the respondents is in complete violation of Article 14, 16 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, since the petitioner is entitled for payment of arrears of salary during the period of suspension and dismissal in view of the memo dated 20.12.2012, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Khagariya, therefore, the action of the respondents amounts to colourable exercise of power. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the act of the Senior Superintendent of Police and the order dated 21.01.2016, handed down by him is against the law settled proposition of law, as enunciated in the case of Arvind Vijay Bilung-versus-State of Jharkhand & Others reported in 2001 (3) J.C.R. 155 (JHC), wherein, it was held that no other State has jurisdiction to pass order against a person, holding the post and office in some other State.
5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondent No. 5, in view of the order dated 19.05.2016 controverting the averments made in the writ application. In the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that the period of suspension and the subsequent 4 termination has been treated as ‘No Work No Pay’ by virtue of the order dated 21.01.2016 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit).
6. Counter affidavit and reply to I.A. No. 3178 of 2016 has been filed by the Respondent-State of Bihar, wherein, it has been submitted that the petitioner has retired from Khagariya, Bihar and, as such, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. It has further been submitted that in response to Letter No. 176/pension dated 20.12.2012, issued from the office of the Superintendent of Police, Khagariya, a Bokaro D.O. No. 124/16 was sent by the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro vide his memo No. 322/R.S. dated 21.01.2016 in which the matter related with the prayer of the retired Hawaldar, Sita Ram Singh had been fully discussed vide Annexure-A. So far as post-retirement benefits are concerned, it has been submitted that the petitioner has already been paid Leave Salary for 300 days vide D.O. dated 02.03.2016 and Rs.5,42,768/- has been paid to the petitioner vide D.O. No.640/14 dated 06.06.2014 by way of Gratuity and his interim pension has also been fixed to the tune of Rs. 9563/- vide D.O. No. 292/2010 dated 15.03.2013 as evident from Annexure-B series to the counter affidavit. It has been further submitted that the retiral benefits in terms of leave salary, gratuity and interim pension have been paid to the petitioner as per Service Rule and any amount payable to him for the period of suspension and dismissal have already been discussed in the Bokaro D.O. No. 124/2016, dated 21.01.2016 and therefore, the State of Bihar cannot review the said D.O., passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro (Respondent No. 5).
7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent- Accountant General, wherein, it has been stated that on receipt of relevant documents, necessary authority pay slip shall be issued in favour of the petitioner without any delay.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing, has submitted that the principle of 'No Work No Pay', is not applicable in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 1999 (2) PLJR303para-22, (2013) 7 SCC595and 2007 (3) JLJR SC27 5 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that the grievance of the petitioner, so far as post-retirement benefits are concerned, have already been redressed, as disclosed from Annexure-3 to the counter affidavit and reply to I.A. No. 3178 of 2016, filed by the Respondent-State of Bihar and so far as the salary for the period of suspension till dismissal has also been dealt with by the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro vide order No. 322, dated 21.01.2016. The retiral benefits in terms of leave salary, gratuity and interim pension have been paid to the petitioner as per Service rule. So far as post retirement benefits of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has already received leave salary of 300 days vide D.O. dated 02.03.2016 and Rs.5,42,768/- has been paid to the petitioner vide D.O. No.640/14 dated 06.06.2014 by way of Gratuity and his interim pension has also been fixed to the tune of Rs. 9563/- vide D.O. No. 292/2010 dated 15.03.2013 vide Annexure-B series to the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent-State of Bihar, therefore, the grievance of the petitioner, so far as post-retirement benefits are concerned, has already been redressed. So far as the period of suspension and the subsequent dismissal is concerned, the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro has already dealt with the matter and the intervening period shall be treated as extraordinary leave.
10. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, no further direction is required to be issued. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Pramath Patnaik, J.) APK