Roy Ram Lala vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 14 July, 2011

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                    CWJC No.3497 of 2009
                                        Roy Ram Lala
                                           Versus
                                  The State Of Bihar & Ors
                                        -----------

For the Petitioner : M/s Surendra Kr. Singh with
Sudha Chandra,Advocates
For the State : Sc 3

——–

3. 14.07.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Counsel for the State.

The petitioner, a Labour Enforcement Officer, seeks the relief for

release of his salary pertaining to the period January 2004 to June

2005.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that letter dated

21.10.2006 of the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Arrah, addressed to the

Labour Inspector, Siwan along with letter dated 2.1.2006 of the

Assistant Labour Commissioner Chapra cum Drawing and Disbursing

Officer addressed to the Commissioner, Patna, read along with letter

dated 14.7.2006 of the Labour Inspector, Siwan addressed to the

Commissioner, are per se more than sufficient evidence that the

petitioner after his orders of transfer was asked to stay back at Arrah by

the District Magistrate. Additionally reliance is placed on the letters of

the District Magistrate dated 5.8.2003, 4.3.2004 and 25.6.2004 etc.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the Labour Superintendent.

The entire tenor of the counter affidavit is that controlling the services

of the petitioner was the jurisdiction and authority of the Labour

Commissioner. The District Magistrate had no authority or jurisdiction to

give any direction and/or instruction to the petitioner. The petitioner

should have complied the directions of his superiors.
The standoff between the Commissioner and the District

Magistrate is for them to resolve. The petitioner cannot be visited with

the consequences.

Let the arrears of salary for the period above noticed be paid to

the petitioner within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of

receipt and/or presentation of a coy of this order.

If the salary is proposed to be denied, the respondents are

necessarily required to proceed departmentally against those under

whose instruction the petitioner acted.

The writ application stands disposed.

Snkumar/-                                         (Navin Sinha,J.)