IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 2809 of 2003
Om Prakash Tyagi . .... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The State Project Director, Ranchi
3. State Project Director, Patna
4. District Programme Co-coordinator, Hazaribagh ... Respondents
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESHWAR SAHAY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. S.K.Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents : J.C. to S.C.-II
------
3/ 6.10.2009
Heard the parties.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction upon the
respondents to pay him salary for the period, February 2000 to November 2000,
which according to the petitioner, has not been paid to him by the District
Programme Coordinator, Jharkhand Education Programme, Hazariabgh.
In the counter affidavit, it has specifically been stated that the
petitioner was appointed initially as Assistant Engineer on 9th of June 1998 at a
consolidated remuneration of Rs. 6500/- per month and his initial posting was at
Purnea. Subsequently, he was transferred from Purnea to Hazaribagh with a
direction to join the transferred post in the first week of July 1998 and
accordingly, he was relieved by letter dated 1.7.1998. The petitioner was thereafter
again transferred from Hazariabgh to Vaishali but the petitioner absented from his
duty. According to the respondents, the petitioner worked for 13 days in the month
of February 2000, 19 days in the month of March, 2000, 5 days in the month of
April 2000, 3 days in the month of May 2000, 10 days in the month of June 2000,
i.e. total for 50 days only and thereafter he absented from his duty from 16.6.2003
to 31.10.2003. It has also been stated that since the petitioner worked only for 50
days and therefore, the salary for the working period from February 2000 to June
2000 i.e. for 50 days were sanctioned, but the petitioner is not ready to accept the
same.
2.
These allegations made against the petitioner have not been
controverted by him by filing any rejoinder.
Since the petitioner did not work in between the period 16.6.2003 to
31.10.2003 as stated by the respondents and he worked only for 50 days in
between the period, February 2000 to June 2000 and therefore, the petitioner can
claim salary only for the period he has worked and not for the period when he was
absent and did not work.
In such a situation, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as
claimed by him.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed having found no merit.
(Amareshwar Sahay, J.)
R.Kr.