Jharkhand High Court
Kutbuddin Momin vs State Of Jharkhand on 11 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 5284 of 2015
Kutbuddin Momin, S/o Late Sk. Bajuddin, Resident of Village -
Bishanpur, P.O. & P.S. - Taljhari, District - Sahibganj, Jharkhand
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, P.O., P.S. & District - Pakur,
Jharkhand
3. The District Superintendent of Education, Pakur, Pakur, P.O., P.S.
& District - Pakur, Jharkhand
4. The Block Development Officer, Pakuriya, P.O. & P.S. - Pakuriya,
District - Pakur, Jharkhand
5. The Block Development Officer, Maheshpur, P.O. & P.S. -
Maheshpur, District- Pakur, Jharkhand... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Din Dayal Saha, Advocate
For the Respondents : None
---
05/11.04.2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner is present.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:
"For a direction upon the respondents to release the arrear of
salary in suspension period from 20.11.2002 to 11.10.2004 with
interest from 20.11.2002 to 11.10.2004 with interest forthwith as the
petitioner had already been retired on 30.06.2006 as Head Clerk
under Pakuriya Block and has obtained all the retiral dues."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the
counter-affidavit, a specific stand has been taken with regard to
question of salary of the petitioner for the period of suspension that
the decision will depend on the final outcome to be taken in a
departmental proceeding which is kept pending for non-receiving
information of the final decision and disposal of the criminal case
going on against the petitioner and accordingly, it has been stated that
the writ petition is pre-mature.
4. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been
acquitted in the criminal case being Mahespur P.S. Case No.86 of
2002 vide judgment dated 18.08.2022 and submits that there is no
legal impediment in releasing the salary for the suspension period.
However, a copy of the said judgment has not been brought on record.
5. Considering the nature of relief which has been sought for by
the petitioner, this Court finds that no order as such has been passed
by the respondents with regard to the claim of arrear of salary for the
period of suspension from 20.11.2002 to 11.10.2004 and as per the
counter-affidavit, the respondents were awaiting for the decision in the
criminal case. Para 9 (i) of the counter-affidavit is quoted as under:
"9. (i) That as regard question of salary of the petitioner of his
suspension period is payable or not it depends on the decision to
be taken in the departmental proceeding which is kept pending
for non-receiving information of final decision and disposal of
the respective criminal case going on against the petitioner. As
such it is now premature question."
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions, this Court is of the
considered view that the grievance of the petitioner can be taken care
of by the respondent no.2 at the first instance.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of enabling the
petitioner to file a detailed representation along with supporting
documents before the respondent no.2 and also a copy of this order
and the writ records within a period of 3 months from today. Upon
filing of such representation, the respondent no.2 shall look into the
grievance of the petitioner and take appropriate steps and pass a
reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of three months
from the date of such representation. The reasoned order be
communicated to the petitioner through speed post at the address to be
provided by the petitioner in the representation itself. If any amount is
found admissible and payable to the petitioner, the same be also
remitted to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date
of passing of the reasoned order.
8. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merit of the
claim or otherwise of the petitioner and it will be open to the
respondent no.2 to pass appropriate order as per law.
9. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/
