Jharkhand High Court
Ram Janam Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 October, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)
W.P.(S) No.948 of 2013
-------
Ram Janam Singh ..... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resource
Development Department, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman District
Establishment Committee, Chatra.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, North
Chotanagpur, Hazaribagh.
5. The District Superintendent of Education, Chatra.
6. The Area Education Officer, Chatra.
7. The Headmaster, Up-graded Middle School, Johri, Chatra.
..... .... Respondents
-------
For the Petitioner :Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv.
For the Res.State :Mr. Apoorva Singh, Adv.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
JUDGMENT
By Court: Heard learned counsel for the parties through
V.C.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred
by the petitioner praying therein for quashing of the letter
dated 10.12.2012 issued by respondent No.2 (Annexure-13)
whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of arrear of
salary for the period from 3.4.1989 to 31.8.1996 has been
rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not worked
during that period. The petitioner has also prayed for
interest over the aforesaid amount.
3. The facts as disclosed in the instant writ
application is that the petitioner was appointed as
Assistant Teacher on 18.03.1989 pursuant to an
advertisement made in the local newspaper and since then
he has been continuously working on the said post.
The petitioner had also moved earlier before this
Court by filing writ application being CWJC
No.1684/1994(R) as the petitioner was terminated on the
ground that he had crossed the age of 35 years at the time
of appointment i.e. on 18.03.1989. The said writ
application was disposed of vide order dated 03.10.1994 by
following order.
"Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned counsel for the respondents.
In this case the petitioner's service have been
terminated on the ground that they have crossed the age
of 35 years at the time of appointment, i.e. on 18.3.1989.
Mr. A. K. Sinha, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that in a similar situation age of other
candidates have been condoned by the Authority
concerned except the petitioners. It appears to be very
hard case for the petitioners. They were appointed in the
year 1989 and since then the respondents have not taken
any step in this regard. They ought to have informed the
petitioners at the time of appointment itself. Now after
serving of so many years it is not proper and/or desirable
to terminate the services of the petitioners on the ground of
over age particularly when the Authority has condoned the
age bar of the other employees of the same panel.
Accordingly, we direct the Authority to re-consider the
matter of the petitioners after taking lenient and
sympathetic view particularly when the petitioners are still
working as alleged by the learned counsel. Accordingly,
we direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to
continue till the final decision is taken by the Authority.
This application is, thus, disposed of."
Thereafter, a letter No.1281 dated 1.7.1996 was
issued from the Office of the Regional Deputy Director of
Education, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh,
whereby the age of the petitioner was condoned. The fact
further transpires that vide letter dated 03.10.1996 issued
by the Area Education Officer, Chatra it has been stated
that as per High Court's order as well as letter of District
Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh, the salary
matter of the petitioner is under consideration but as the
petitioner is facing financial hardship; thus his salary will
be fixed temporarily at Rs.1200/- to Rs.2040/- till the
fixation of actual salary.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he
was appointed in accordance with law on 18.03.1989 as an
Assistant Teacher pursuant to an advertisement made in
the local newspaper and continuously working on the said
post but due salary has not been paid to him till 1996.
Though his service was terminated, however the same was
restored pursuant to the order passed by the High Court in
the earlier writ application but for the reasons best known
to the respondents the petitioner has not been paid the due
salary from 03.04.1989 to 31.08.1996.
5. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner submits that the Regional
Deputy Director of Education had issued a letter wherein it
has been stated that as per High Court's order age of the
petitioner has been condoned. He further draws attention
towards Annexure-14 and submits that a letter dated
04.04.1996 has been issued by the Director Primary
Education, Bihar which clearly transpires that on the basis
of letter dated 18.08.1995 of the District Superintendent of
Education, Hazaribagh he has held that the petitioner
along with one Baleshwar Prasad Singh was continuously
working from the date of their appointment.
Mr. Sinha further draws attention towards
several other documents including the letter of deputation
of the petitioner in election duty during the time for which
the salary has not been paid.
Relying upon the aforesaid documents learned
senior counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled for the
salary as he has worked for the said period.
6. Mr. Apoorva Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent-State submits that the entire matter was
verified and it was found that the petitioner did not work in
the school after his joining and he deputed another
teacher, namely, Rameshi Ram who performed his duty
from 03.04.1989 to January 1992. However, no such
document has been annexed by the respondents.
He further relied upon the averments made in
the counter affidavit and submits that he is not entitled for
any salary for the period in question.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
after going through the relevant documents annexed with
the respective affidavits and the averments made therein; it
appears that in the counter affidavit at paragraph No.16 it
has been stated that the petitioner did not work for the
relevant period, but no such documents has been produced
by the respondents. On the other hand, the petitioner has
produced the copy of attendance register of teachers of
Primary School Basbutta, Pratapur, Chatra from April,
1989 to 1996 which clearly transpires that the petitioner
was doing his duty during the relevant period. At this stage
it is relevant to mention here that though this fact has been
vaguely denied by the respondents, inasmuch as, neither
any document has been produced that the petitioner has
deputed by any other person at his place; or the averment
that the signature was of other person has not been
supported by any document.
8. Even otherwise, the letter dated 1.07.1996
issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, North
Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, whereby the age of the
petitioner was condoned pursuant to the order passed by
High Court, clearly transpires that an order was issued to
pay the salary to the petitioner from the date of joining.
Further, by going through Annexure-14 it
appears that the Director Primary Education Bihar in his
letter dated 04.04.1996 has categorically held that in view
of the letter of District Superintendent of Education,
Hazarbagh dated 18.08.1995 it is clear that the petitioner
along with one Baleshwar Prasad Singh was appointed and
was working till the date of issuance of that letter.
It is not out of place to mention here that the
documents annexed with the writ application further
transpires that the petitioner was also given charge for
election duty during 1989.
9. Before parting, it is necessary to refer the
certificate dated 21.12.2013 issued by the District
Superintendent of Education, Chatra (Annexure-15 to the
supplementary affidavit) in favour of the petitioner
certifying that the petitioner has joined service on
03.04.1989 and receiving salary from 01.09.1996 till
30.6.2010.
10. Thus, it appears that there are several letters
issued by the respondents to show that the petitioner was
working in the said school and has not received the salary
for the period from 3.4.1989 to 31.8.1996; however, there
is no iota of evidence/ document which has been produced
by the respondent-State to show that the petitioner did not
work. Though, the attendance register which has been
produced by the petitioner has been vaguely disputed but
they cannot justify the averments made in paragraph No.16
of the counter affidavit that the petitioner did not work in
the school and he has deputed some other teacher, namely,
Rameshi Ram who was performing his duty from
03.04.1989 to January, 1992. This averment cannot be
accepted by this court for the sole reason that why the
principal of the school sat calm over the matter and did not
complained about the aforesaid fact to the superior
authorities.
Moreover, the respondents cannot dispute their
own letter dated 1.7.1996 issued by Regional Deputy
Director of Education, North Chotanagpur Division,
Hazaribagh and also the letter of Director Primary
Education (Annexure-14), who has categorically held that
in view of the letter dated 18.08.1995 of the District
Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh the petitioner
had worked for the period and also the certificate
(Annexure-15) given by the District Superintendent of
Education. All these letters clearly goes to show that
though the petitioner was working in the school but was
not getting the regular salary prior to 31.8.1996.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussions this Court
holds that the petitioner is entitled for the arrear of salary
for the period from 03.4.1989 to 31.08.1996. Consequently,
the impugned order dated 10.12.2012 (Annexure-13), is
hereby, quashed and set aside.
The respondent No.2 is directed to pass an
appropriate order with regards to payment of arrear of
salary to the petitioner for the period in question i.e. from
3.4.1989 to 31.08.1996 and pay the same within a period
of four months from the date of receipt/production of a
copy of this order.
10. With the aforesaid directions, the instant writ
application stands allowed and disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 22.10.2021
Fahim/-NFAR
