IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 4427 of 2007
Lalita Devi Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka
3.The Deputy Director, Welfare Santhal Pargana, Dumka
4.The District Welfare Officer, Dumka Respondents
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.G.R. Patnaik
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents: JC to GA
---
3. 04.08.2009
The petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for a direction upon the
respondents to pay her the dues of salary which was payable in the account of her
deceased husband who died in harness while employed as a Sweeper in
Government Boys Hostel.
2. Earlier, the petitioner had moved this court by filing a writ application
claiming that despite the fact that the other employees who were employed along
with him, were regularized in service, but he has been left out arbitrarily. This
court while considering the prayer, had directed the respondents to consider the
petitioner’s case and to consider the possibility of regularizing the petitioner’s
service against future vacancies.
3. Petitioner’s contention in this writ application is that earlier, the
respondents had stopped payment of salary to her husband, against which her
husband had moved this court and only upon the direction issued by this court,
did the respondents pay him the salary, but such payment was made till the year
2000 only and thereafter, payment was stopped.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to annexure-7 series purportedly
issued by the Hostel Superintendent and which, according to the him, confirm that
the petitioner was in continuous employment under the respondents for the period
mentioned in the said annexure which extend till the date of the employee’s death
in 2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that the salary payable to her husband
was illegally and arbitrarily withheld by the respondents.
5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it
has been stated that the deceased husband of the petitioner was originally
employed as a daily wage employee and his services were never regularized on
account of the fact that the post on which he was working, was not sanctioned by
the Government. It is further submitted that as long as the petitioner’s husband
had worked, he was paid his salary.
6. Counter-affidavit does not advert to the annexure filed by the petitioner
which are purported certificates issued by the Hostel Superintendent, confirming
that the petitioner’s husband had continuously worked and remained in service,
till the date of his death.
7. Petitioner, on the basis of such certificate, appears to have make out a
prima facie case in support of her claim for payment of salary payable in the
account of her deceased husband, for the period during which her husband was in
employment.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner may file
a representation within ten days from the date of this order, before the concerned
authority of the respondents and, within one month from the date of receipt of the
representation, the concerned authority of the respondents shall consider the same
in the light of the documents, including the certificate of attendance granted by
the Hostel Superintendent and take appropriate decision by passing a reasoned
and speaking order. If the amount of arrears of salary is found genuinely payable
in the account of the deceased husband of the petitioner, the respondents shall
release such payments in favour of the petitioner, within one month from the date
of taking decision on the petitioner’s representation. The decision taken upon the
petitioner’s representation shall be effectively communicated to the petitioner.
With the above observations, this writ application is disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the
respondents.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J)
Ranjeet/