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

2022 Supreme(Pat) 1059

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P.B. BAJANTHRI, J.
Pankaj Kumar Ghosh Son of late Sachinandan Ghosh – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9557 of 2010
Decided on : 22-08-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr.Pramod Kumar Sinha, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Mr. Chetan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Arun Kumar Arun, Advocate

The appointing authority must follow the required procedure for dealing with unauthorized absence and initiate disciplinary proceedings before denying salary to an employee.

Headnote:

Salary Entitlement - Deceased Employee - Not Paid Salary - 19.03.1982 to 19.01.1989 - [Disciplinary Proceedings, Salary Payment] - The court discussed the entitlement of a deceased employee to salary during a specific period and the requirement for disciplinary proceedings before denying salary. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the appointing authority to calculate and disburse the arrears of salary to the legal heirs of the deceased employee.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased employee, Smt. Shakuntala Ghosh, worked as ANM and was not paid salary from 19.03.1982 to 19.01.1989 due to alleged unauthorized absence. The appointing authority did not initiate disciplinary proceedings and did not pay the salary. The petitioner, legal heirs of the deceased, sought intervention from the court.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appointing authority failed to follow the required procedure for dealing with unauthorized absence and did not initiate disciplinary proceedings. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the calculation and disbursement of arrears of salary to the legal heirs of the deceased employee.

Issues: Entitlement to salary during unauthorized absence, failure to initiate disciplinary proceedings, and non-payment of salary to the deceased employee.

Ratio Decidendi: The appointing authority must follow the required procedure for dealing with unauthorized absence, including initiating disciplinary proceedings, before denying salary to an employee. Failure to do so may result in the court setting aside the impugned order and directing the calculation and disbursement of arrears of salary to the legal heirs of the deceased employee.

Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the appointing authority was directed to calculate and disburse the arrears of salary to the legal heirs of the deceased employee.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. In the instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:-

    “(1) That this writ application is being filed for issuance of appropriate writ of writs in the nature of the writ of (i) certiorari quashing part of the order dtd. 28.06.2009 (annexure-17) passed by the principal secretary-cum-commissioner, Deptt. Of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, respondent no. 2 as communicated to the petitioner under memo no. 912 dtd. 8.07.2009 by Director, Health Services, Bihar, respondent no. 3 whereby and whereunder the respondent no. 2 did not accept the period running from 19.03.1982 to 20.01.1989 (correct date should be 19.01.1989) the period the petitioner remained awaiting for posing and disentitled find the petitioner for salary in utter violation of the order of sanction of the salary contained in Memo No. 275 dtd 8.03.1997 (Annexure-8) which attained finality under the order dtd. 11.03.2002 (annexure-12) of this Hon’ble court passed on C.W.J.C. No. 7160 of 2000 (ii) Mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner for the said period running from 19.03.1982 to 19.01.1989 in the consequential revised scale of pay, and stay the operation of the impugned order as contained in Annexure-17.”

3. Petitioners are legal heirs of the deceased-employee (Smt. Shakuntala Ghosh).

4. Crux of the matter in the present petition is whether the deceased-employee is entitled to salary during the intervening period from 19.03.1982 to 19.01.1989 or not? The alleged allegations levelled against the deceased-employee is that she remained unauthorized absent during the aforesaid period while working as ANM in the office of 9th Respondent. She was transferred and posted to Referral Hospital, Laxmipur, the then Munger district on 08.04.1991. Till passing of the impugned order dated 28.06.2009 there is protracted correspondence among the deceased-employee and the official respondents. Further deceased-employee stated to have approached this Court and this Court has directed the concerned authority to examine the grievance of the petitioner relating to payment of arrears of salary for the aforesaid period. In noncompliance of the order of this Court, the deceased-employee is stated to have filed contempt petition. During pendency of the contempt proceedings, the official respondents have passed order. Thus, the deceased-employee approached this Court. During pendency of the present petition, Smt. Shakuntala Ghosh-petitioner died and legal heirs have been brought on record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no doubt remaining unauthorized absent for a particular period amounts to misconduct. At the same time, official respondents have not initiated enquiry proceedings in order to hold whether deceased-employee has remained unauthorized absent or absence beyond her control or not? In other words, there is no determination of unauthorized absence so as to attract alleged misconduct stated to have been committed by the deceased-employee. In the absence of determination of unauthorized absence in a domestic enquiry, respondents cannot deny the salary which is due to the deceased-employee during the intervening period from 19.03.1982 to 19.01.1989.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents resisted the aforesaid contentions and submitted that a detailed speaking order has been passed that deceased-employee remained unauthorized absent for the aforesaid period and she is not entitled to salary for the aforesaid period. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the speaking order. In the result, petitioner has not made out a case so as to interfere with the impugned order and issuance of direction to the concerned authority.

7. Heard learned counsels for the respective parties.

8. The deceased-employee, Smt. Shakuntala Ghosh while working as ANM, she was not paid salary during the period from 19.03.1982 to 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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