IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P.(S) No. 4426 of 2007
...
1. Pankaj Kumar Patra
2. Tapas Kumar Patra ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Water Resources Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Administrator, Subarnrekha Multipurpose Project,
Adityapur, Jamshedpur, Seraikella-Kharsawan
4. Director, Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation, Subarnrekha
Project, Adityapur, Seraikella-Kharsawan
5. Superintending Engineer, Subarnrekha Project Unit,
Adityapur, Seraikella-Kharsawan ... Respondents
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. A.K.Sahani, Advocate
For the Respondents : - J.C. to G.P.-II.
...
5/08.04.2010
Heard counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners in this writ application had initially prayed for a direction
upon the respondents to accept their joining on the post of Draftsman Grade-II and
Dresser respectively and pay them all the consequential monetary benefits within a
specified period.
3. From the rival submissions the facts which emerge are that the petitioners
and their family members happen to be persons who were displaced consequent upon
the acquisition of their lands. Such acquisition was made way back in the year
1985-86. After recognizing the petitioners’ fathers as the displaced persons, Vikas
Pustika was opened in their names and was issued to them and in addition, they were
provided employment on 30.06.1990.
Subsequently, in 1994 not only was the Vikas Pustika withdrawn but their
services were also terminated.
4. The aggrieved persons thereupon preferred a writ application before this
Court and pursuant to the directions passed in the writ application, the respondents
though restored the Vikas Pustika to the displaced persons, but did not take any
decision promptly regarding restoration of the employment to the petitioners.
5. The matter was again pursued by the aggrieved persons before this Court by
way of a writ application. Upon hearing the parties, this Court remitted the matter to
the concerned authorities of the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners
for restoration of their services. When in spite of the directions, no positive result
was forthcoming, the petitioners have filed the present writ application.
6. It is informed that during the pendency of this writ application, the cases of
both the displaced persons were considered by the concerned authorities and by
letters, Anexure-O and Annexure-P dated 19.03.2008 and 07.05.2008 respectively,
the earlier orders of termination of service, were withdrawn and the petitioners were
allowed to be reinstated in service. However, no specific observation was recorded
regarding the claim for salary and consequential monetary benefits for the period
during which the displaced persons were kept out of service.
7. It however appears from the statements contained in paragraph-15 of the
counter affidavit of the respondents, that the claim for salary and other consequential
monetary benefits which may have accrued during the period when the petitioners
were kept out of service, was reserved for consideration after the petitioners submit
their joining in service.
8. It is informed by the counsel for the petitioners that both the petitioners have
joined their respective postings and they are getting their present salary, but no
decision has been taken/communicated to them regarding their claim for salary and
other consequential monetary benefits for the period when they were kept out of
service.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per the statements
contained in Paragraph-15 of the counter affidavit, it appears that both the petitioners
were considered entitled for the monetary benefits which would have accrued to
them for the period when they were kept out of service.
10. Even though the counsel for the Respondents would not specifically concede
but as per settled principle of law, the claim of the petitioners for salary and other
consequential monetary benefits for the period when they were kept out of service,
has to be treated as a genuine and reasonable claim in view of the fact that though
initially the respondents had terminated the services of the petitioners, but later, the
order of termination was recalled by them. The obvious inference is that the
concerned authorities of the respondents had reconciled to the fact that the
termination was improper. As a result of the termination, however the petitioners
were kept out of service although they were not only entitled to continue in service
but they had all along been offering their services. The petitioners cannot therefore
be subjected to any detriment for the fault of the respondents and they cannot be
denied the benefits of the salary which they would have received, had they not been
kept out of service without any fault on their part.
11. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, this application is disposed
of with a direction to the concerned authorities of the respondents, in particular to the
Respondent No. 3, to take an appropriate decision on the petitioners’ claim for salary
and other consequential monetary benefits which would have accrued to them during
the period they were kept out of service and after assessing the payable amounts
within a period of two months from the date of this order, pay the same within one
month from the date of assessment.
Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondents.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
Birendra/