JUDGMENT
Permod Kohli, J.
1. Petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant-cum-Typist on 20th of December, 1985. The service of the petitioner came to be terminated alongwith two others on 29th of May, 1986 on the ground of their appointment, being illegal, having been made without any selection. It appears that on some representation, the termination of the petitioner and others was kept in abeyance by order dated 21st June, 1986 and have continued to perform their duties. Their pay-scale was revised. While performing their duties, petitioner and others approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1026 of 1998 and claimed for redesignation on a higher post of Typist of Secretariat level/This writ petition came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 16th August, 1999 with the following observations:
22. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner having appointed against a post of Assistant-cum-Typist in the then scale of 580-860/-, there was no occasion for the authorities to provide them with the revised scale of Rs. 680-965/-, as was provided on the recommendation of the Pay Anomaly Removal Committee to the Typists of Secretariat and attached offices. If such mistake was committed, it was always open to the authorities to rectify the same and thereby. I find no illegality in the impugned orders, which have been issued after notices to the petitioner
2. Thereafter vide letter dated 29th of May, 2001, the initial termination order of the petitioner and others dated 29th of May, 1980 was revived and petitioner and others were again terminated. The order of termination was again ordered to be kept in abeyance vide Communication dated 20th of September, 2001 issued by the Additional Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Ranchi. A direction was issued that the order of keeping in abeyance the termination be implemented. The Chief Conservator of Forests, however, instead of implementing the order responded vide his Communication dated 12th October, 2001. Besides giving the details of the circumstances under which the petitioner was terminated also desired amendment of the letter dated 20th of September, 2001 in so far the status and Grade of the petitioner is concerned. There is large correspondence on record amongst the officials. It appears from this correspondence that the order of (sic) termination dated 20th of September, 2001 was not implemented for one or the other reason and the petitioner continued to represent even till 2006. Even in 2006, there is a correspondence between the Chief Conservator of Forests to the Government, which clearly indicates that the issue of reinduction of the petitioner into service continued to remain undecided. Petitioner has filed this petition claiming salary from May, 2001 till the date of filing of the writ petition on the ground that mere pendency of the file does not disentitle the petitioner to claim the salary.
3. The Respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit. From the averments made in Para 36, 38, 40 as also Para 18, it is evident that the order dated 20th September, 2001 has not been carried out by the concerned officials and despite a direction from the Additional Secretary to the Government to keep the order of termination in abeyance, the directions could not be carried out, as a result, petitioner remained out of job since 20th of May, 2001. The Correspondence on record also reveal that the issue of reinduction into service is still pending with the Government. Be that as it may, the fact remains that petitioner and others are out of job with effect from 29th of May, 2001 and their claim of salary is not sustainable in the present petition. There is no merit in this writ application, which is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is observed that the Respondents have acted in a most callous manner by not deciding the issue of reinduction of the petitioner into service and the file is pending for the last more than five years. Bureaucratic approach of the officials seems to have compelled the petitioner to approach the Court again. As a matter of fact the issue should be decided on the basis of the materials available on record and the good wisdom, however, the same has not been done.
4. In the above circumstances, the Respondents are directed to decide the issue of reinduction of the petitioner within a period of two months from today.