IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MJC No.823 of 2010
1. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDEY S/O LATE SHYAMA PANDEY R/O MOHANPUR, P.S.- LAXMIPUR,
DISTT.- JAMUI
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. ANJANI KUMAR SINGH, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPTT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES, GOVT. OF
BIHAR, PATNA
3. K.K. PATHAK, SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES ( HIGHER EDUCATION ),BIHAR, PATNA
4. SHYAM NARAYAN KUNWAR, DIRECTOR HUMAN RESOURCES, BIHAR, PATNA
5. RAM BUJHAWAN SINGH, DIRECTOR BIHAR RASTRIYA BHASHA PARISHAD, SAIDPUR, PATNA
-----------
4/ 13/04/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for
the opposite parties.
A supplementary show cause has been filed on
behalf of the Director, Bihar Rashtrabhasha Parishad and
on behalf of Special Secretary, Department of H.R.D.
The petitioner came to this Court in C.W.J.C.
No.11959/99 with a claim to be considered for promotion.
He was directed to represent. On his representation
followed termination in violation of law, set aside in
C.W.J.C. No. 1060/08. The order of the Court is stated to
have been served on the respondents on 11.1.2010,
wrongly typed as 11.1.2009). The present application was
then filed on 25.2.2010. On 19.1.2011 four weeks time
was granted to the opposite parties to file show cause
indicating that further adjournment may only be granted
upon imposition of costs. That failed to deter the opposite
parties by assisting the Court in timely dispensation of
justice. On 9.3.2011 the Court granted further time
subject to payment of costs of Rs.1000/- regarding an
2
explanation in the show cause for the delay in filing of the
reply, fixing liability and recovering the cost from the
delinquent concerned.
The show cause by the Special Secretary does
not deny the assertion of the petitioner that he submitted
a copy of the order of the Court on 11.1.2010, but
acknowledges only the reminder given by the petitioner on
1.2.2010. It then states that several letters and reminders
were given to the Opposite Party No.5, the Director, Bihar
Rashtrabhasha Parishad by the Department of H.R.D.
Finally, Opposite Party No.5 informed that he has
deposited the costs and joining of the petitioner has been
accepted on 4.4.2011.
The show cause on behalf of Opposite Party No.5
states that after the petitioner represented with a copy of
the order of the Court, he recommended the same to the
Department of H.R.D. for necessary action and approval.
The Department of H.R.D. advised him to file an L.P.A.
There is no statement what happened thereafter. The
Department of H.R.D. never informed him of the filing of
any contempt application but he was informed of the
same for the first time on 3.3.2011. He then revoked the
termination of the petitioner.
The Special Secretary and the Director quite
obviously are at loggerheads with each other in a
3
desperate attempt not to invite the wrath of the Court on
whom responsibility be fixed for the delay in filing of the
show cause.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the joining given on 11.1.2010 has been accepted in the
aforesaid manner only on 4.4.2011. The Court fails to
understand what approval was Opposite Party No.5
granting to the joining of the petitioner. It was an order of
the Court. There was no occasion for Opposite Party No.5
to sit over the order of the Court as a superior authority to
accept or not to accept the joining of the petitioner. He
was required to do so on 11.1.2010 itself, the day the
order of the Court was brought to his attention by the
petitioner.
The Court was satisfied that the Special
Secretary and the Director both were liable for imposition
of heavy costs not only for wasting the time of the Court,
but harassing a citizen in the background of the
controversy and even after the orders of the Court. The
Court, however, refrains from doing so.
The Court however does consider it proper and
necessary to notice the manner in which the officials of
the State who are reposed power in trust by the State to
act in the best interest of the State fritter away the
resources of the State in frivolous litigations which is
4
virtually defenceless. The power does not inhere in the
Officer. It inheres in the chair.
The present is a classic case how officials of the
State resort to every nook and corner of the legal arena to
deny justice to a citizen. Frivolous actions ensure that
timely justice is denied which virtually amounts to
denying justice under the old adage “justice delayed is
justice denied”.
The Court put a question to the counsel for the
Special Secretary and the Director as to why in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner
should not be directed payment of salary from 11.1.2010
to 3.4.2011 not from the coffers of the State, but from
their salary. The joint submission was for time to seek
instructions.
This Court directs the Principal Secretary, in
light of the present discussion contained in the order to
grant a personal hearing to the Special Secretary and the
Director in a joint sitting with them and then fix and
determine liability on both or either of them as the case
may be for the salary of the petitioner from the period
dated 11.1.2010 to 3.4.2011, to be complied with within a
maximum period of three months from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order before the
Principal Secretary.
5
The petitioner, if so advised, may represent for
the original relief of promotion for which he had earlier
approached the Court, but ended up with termination.
The contempt proceedings stand disposed.
KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)