IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.15678 of 2004
ABDHESH KUMAR S/O SHRI RAM NARAIN SAH R/O VILLAGE- JANAKPUR
ROAD POLICE STATION- PUPARI, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI
.............Petitioner
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE JANAKPUR ROAD NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE/ NAGAR PANCHAYAT,
JANAKPUR ROAD, POLICE STATION PUPARI DISTRICT- SITAMARHI THROUGH
THE CHAIRMAN.
3. THE CHAIRMAN, JANAKPUR ROAD NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE/ NAGAR
PANCHAYAT, JANAKPUR ROAD, POLICE STATION PUPARI DISTRICT-
SITAMARHI
4. THE SPECIAL OFFICER, JANAKPUR ROAD NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE/
NAGAR PANCHAYAT, JANAKPUR ROAD, POLICE STATION PUPARI DISTRICT-
SITAMARHI
5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JANAKPUR ROAD NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE/
NAGAR PANCHAYAT, JANAKPUR ROAD, POLICE STATION PUPARI DISTRICT-
SITAMARHI
.........Respondents
-----------
5. 22.07.2011 Heard the parties.
This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for
quashing of the Memo No. 123 dated 29.5.2004
(Annexure-1) whereby the respondent no.4 has refused 18
months salary to the petitioner being for the months of
January, 2001 to March, 2001 and from April 2002 to
June 2003 along with interest thereon and for other
consequential benefits.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner had
initially been appointed as License Inspector on temporary
basis in the Janakpur Road Notified Area Committee as
an unsanctioned post. Subsequently the committee
resolved and regularized the services of the petitioner
while also writing to the concerned authority of the State
Government for sanctioning of post which, however, did
not come to pass. After about 14 years of continuous
service, the petitioner was terminated vide Memo No. 114
dated 1.7.2003 (Annexure-7).
On an earlier occasion, this court in C.W.J.C.
No. 14247 of 2003 had by its order dated 11.2.2004 held
that the petitioner could not be allowed to continue in
service against unsanctioned post. However, as regards
non payment of salary the petitioner was at liberty to
make a representation to the respondents for redressal of
his grievances.
The matter has since been disposed of by the
concerned authority in terms of Memo No. 123 dated
29.5.2004 and the petitioner’s claim for arrears has been
rejected on the solitary ground that when the appointment
itself was illegal being against non-sanctioned post,
payment of salary for the period under consideration
would not be in accordance with law.
Thereafter, the petitioner has also issued a
legal notice dated 12.7.2004 for payment of his arrears but
to no avail. He has therefore approached this court for
appropriate relief.
This court is unable to appreciate the
respondents’ stand for their refusal to make payment to
the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the services of the
petitioner were duly taken by the respondent. It is also a
matter of record that the petitioner has been serving for
over 14 years against unsanctioned post and payments
were throughout being made in the past without demur. It
further transpires that the respondent had written to the
State for sanctioning of post since the services of the
petitioner were required by the respondent.
Having taken the services of the petitioner, the
respondents’ arbitrary stance in not paying the petitioner
for the period in question cannot be countenanced much
less endorsed.
In these circumstances, it is directed that the
respondents would make payment for the entire 18
months period under reference for which services had
admittedly been taken from the petitioner but he has not
been paid for the same. The payment should be made as
expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four
months hereof.
With these directions, the writ petition is
disposed of.
Fahad. ( Vikash Jain, J. )