IN THE HIGHT COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P (S) No. 1615 of 2005
---
Clement Panna Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Simdega
4. Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, North and South
Division, Ranchi
5. Block Development Officer, Jaldega, Simdega
6. The District Provident Fund Officer, Simdega
7. State of Bihar (For Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Patna
8. Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi
9. Accountant General, Bihar, Patna Respondents
---
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.G.R. Patnaik
---
For the Petitioner: Mr. H.K. Mahato, Advocate
For the State of Jharkhand: JC to SC (L&C)
For the State of Bihar: JC to Mr. S.P. Roy, Advocate
----
7. 27.10.2009
It appears that on the ground of his long absence, which the respondents
have declared to be an unauthorized absence, the petitioner was not paid his salary
for the period claimed by the petitioner, i.e. for the months of May and June 1979
and thereafter.
2. The petitioner’s contention is that he had continuously worked till May
1979 and as such, he was entitled to the salary for the month of May 1979 and
further, since after having been declared medically fit and having submitted his
joining, it was the respondents who had refused to accept his joining even without
the petitioner’s services being terminated pursuant to any disciplinary proceeding
and as such, the respondents could not possibly refuse to acknowledge the
petitioner in continuous service and deny to release payment of salary to him till
the date of his retirement.
3. Counsel for the respondents would want to explain that the petitioner had
worked only till March 1979 and thereafter, remained absent till April 1984. It is
further stated that the petitioner had appeared before the Registrar, Co-operative
Societies on 7th of April 1984, but despite being advised to appear before the
Medical Board and obtain a medical fitness certificate from the Board, he did not
produce any medical fitness certificate of the Medical Board.
4. Counsel for the petitioner interjects, by stating that in compliance with the
direction of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, the petitioner did appear before
the Medical Board and obtained the medical fitness certificate which was
forwarded to the Respondent Authorities on 14.02.1986, but the respondents have
failed to consider the same.
5. From the facts stated, it appears that despite the petitioner’s long absence,
no disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him and neither was any decision
taken by way of punishment on the ground of his long absence. Under such
2
circumstances, it is deemed that the petitioner was treated as being in continuous
service, notwithstanding his long absence. Under such circumstances, the
respondents ought to have considered whether the period of absence could be
adjusted towards permissible leave. This has, admittedly, not been done in this
case.
6. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the Respondent No. 2,
namely, Registrar, Co-operative Societies, State of Jharkhand, is directed to
consider the petitioner’s case in terms of his claim, in accordance with law and to
take an appropriate decision thereon, by passing a reasoned and speaking order
and shall effectively communicate such decision to the petitioner. If as per the
Rules, the petitioner is found entitled for payment of salary for the leave period,
then the Respondent Authority shall ensure that such payment is promptly
released and paid to the petitioner. The respondents shall also ensure that the other
admissible retiral benefits which, according to the petitioner, have remained
unpaid, shall also be released and paid to the petitioner. The entire exercise must
be completed within three months from the date of receipt / production of a copy
of this order.
With these observations and directions, 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/