IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P. (S) No. 3881 of 2007
...
Savitri Laguri ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum West.
3. District Agriculture Officer, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West.
4. District Agriculture Officer, Saraikella-Kharsawan.
5. Sub-divisional Agriculture Officer, Saraikella-Kharsawan.
6. Deputy Commissioner, Saraikella-Kharsawan.
7. The Accountant General, Bihar & Jharkhand, Ranchi....Respondents.
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - Mrs. Sudha Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State : - J.C. to S.C. (Mines).
For the Respondent No. 7 : - Mr. S. Shrivastava, Advocate.
...
5/17.03.2010
Learned counsel for the Respondent-State informs that counter
affidavit has been drafted and filed but as it appears from the records, no such
counter affidavit is available and neither has a copy of the same been served upon the
counsel for the petitioner as stated by the counsel.
2. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State has, however, produced his
office copy of the counter affidavit, which on perusal, indicates that the only stand
taken by the Respondents in response to the petitioner’s claim is that the petitioner’s
husband was a temporary employee.
3. The petitioner’s prayer in this writ application is for a direction upon
the concerned authorities of the Respondents to pay the arrears of salary, which was
payable in the account of her deceased-husband from February, 1996 to 09.02.1999
i.e. the date on which the petitioner’s husband had died.
4. As per the facts claimed by the petitioner, her husband, late
Gurucharan Laguri was employed and posted as Village Extension Officer at
Saraikella and in course of employment, he died in harness on 09.02.1999. In spite of
his services being engaged, his wages/salary for the period, February, 1996 to
February, 1999 was not paid to him.
5. It appears from the counter affidavit of the Respondents that though
the amount of Group Insurance and salary up to 31st January, 1996 have been paid to
the deceased-employee but there is no affirmation that salary for the aforementioned
period as claimed by the petitioner, was released and paid to the deceased-employee.
The counter affidavit of the Respondents declares the only stand that the
employment of the deceased-employee was on temporary basis. No denial has been
made or any dispute raised on the petitioner’s claim that the services of the deceased-
employee was continuously engaged during the period for which the arrears of salary
have been claimed.
It also appears that pursuant to an earlier order, this case was
referred for settlement to the Lok Adalat but, as informed by the counsel for the
petitioner, the concerned officers of the Respondents did not turn up before the Lok
Adalat and therefore, the matter had to be returned for adjudication of the dispute to
this Court.
6. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, this writ application
is disposed of with a direction to the concerned authorities of the Respondents to
release and pay the entire amount of arrears of salary/wages payable in the account of
the deceased-employee from February, 1996 to February, 1999 within three months
from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the event, the amount is
not paid within the period stipulated hereinabove, the same shall carry interest @ 9
per cent per annum payable from the date, after lapse of the three months’ stipulated
period, till the date of final payment.
7. With the aforesaid observations, this writ application stands disposed
of at the stage of admission.
8. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the
Respondents.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
APK