SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Pat) 845

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAKESH KUMAR, J.
Shankar Ram, Son of Late Bhikhar Ram - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 240 of 2011
Decided On : 20-06-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rupak Kumar.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ajay Kr. Singh.

Headnote:Service Law–Salary for the higher post–Petitioner was on substantive post of Superintending Engineer–Given additional charge of Chief Engineer and at the time of superannuation handed over charge as Chief Engineer–In departmental proceeding also, the petitioner was depicted as Chief Engineer–All through the petitioner was treated as Chief Engineer–Respondent directed to pay the pay-scale of Chief Engineer to the petitioner from the date he was given additional charge of Chief Engineer till superannuation–Writ petition allowed. (Paras 10 & 15)

       2008 (3) PLJR 144; 1995 (1) PLJR 362; (1998) 5 SCC 87; AIR 1986 SC 1571; AIR 1991 SC 101–Referred.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner, invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for directing the respondents to pay salary for the post of Chief Engineer from 07-10-2004 to 31-07-2007 with all consequential benefits.

2. The petitioner was earlier posted as Superintending Engineer in the State of Jharkhand. After bifurcation he was allotted Bihar cadre, vide Notification no. 3734 dated 04-09-2004. Earlier, he was posted as Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Chaibasa. Pursuant to Notification dated 04-09-2004, the petitioner handed over charge of post of Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Chaibasa and thereafter, he submitted his joining to Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna on 15-09-2004. The petitioner was then posted as Technical Secretary to the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department and he was also given additional charge of the post of Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Birpur, vide Notification No. 5654 dated 05-10-2004, vide Annexure–3 to the writ petition. By the said Notification, besides the petitioner, others were also posted at different places. Subsequently, the outgoing Chief Engineer namely Sri Hari Prasad Das handed over charge of Chief Engineer to the petitioner on 07-10-2004, vide Annexure–4 to the writ petition. The petitioner thereafter taken over charge of Chief Engineer, Birpur, on the same date, vide Annexure – 5 to the writ petition. It has been pleaded that subsequently, the petitioner got vigilance clearance from the department of Water Resources, State of Jharkhand, vide letter dated 12-10-2004. The petitioner’s promotion as Superintending Engineer was regularized with effect from 01-12-2000, vide Memo No. 174 dated 06-09-2005 (Annexure–7 to the writ petition). However subsequently, in contemplation of departmental proceeding, vide Memo No. 596 dated 07-06-2006, the petitioner was put under-suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated, vide resolution dated 15-09-2006, on certain charges. While continuing with the departmental proceeding against the petitioner by Memo No. 1233 dated 04-12-2006 (Annexure – 10 to the writ petition), the suspension of petitioner was revoked. After revocation of suspension, the petitioner gave joining on 05-12-2006 and finally, he superannuated with effect from 31-07-2007, while departmental proceeding was pending against him. The departmental proceeding, which was pending against the petitioner, was converted under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The said order was passed on 30-04-2008 (Annexure – 18).

3. The Petitioner by way of filing a writ petition, vide C.W.J.C. No. 8631 of 2009, assailed the resolution of the State Government dated 15-09-2006, whereby departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and he was served with the memo of charge. The said writ petition was disposed of on 25-07-2009, vide Annexure – 19 to the writ petition. This Court directed the petitioner to file his written defence before the Enquiry Officer within one month and thereafter, the Enquiry Officer was directed to proceed with the enquiry and conclude the same as early as possible in any case within four months from the date of filing of written defence. There was a specific direction that if the petitioner does not cooperate in the disposal of the enquiry proceeding within the time fixed by this Court, then it shall be open to the Enquiry Officer to proceed ex-parte. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach this Court for quashing of the charges, if the enquiry is not concluded within the time granted by the Court and lack of progress in the enquiry not attributed to the petitioner.

4. Since despite the order of this Court dated 25-07-2009 in C.W.J.C. No. 8631 of 2009, the departmental proceeding was not concluded, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing another writ petition i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 2762 of 2010, which was finally allo


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top