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

2024 Supreme(Jhk) 373

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.N.PATHAK, J.
Manju Sharma – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P.(S). No. 515 of 2020
Decided on : 19-06-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Manish Kumar

IMPORTANT POINT
An employee's salary cannot be withheld without proper departmental proceedings, and irregular appointments can be regularized through continued service and promotions.

Headnote:

[EMPLOYMENT] - [RETIRAL BENEFITS] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - [The court discussed the principles of employment law regarding the regularization of temporary appointments, the necessity of following due process before withholding salary, and the implications of promotions granted to employees. The court emphasized that an employee's salary cannot be withheld without proper departmental proceedings, and that the irregularity of an appointment does not negate the validity of subsequent promotions and salary payments if the employee has been allowed to continue in service without challenge for an extended period.]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, originally appointed as a temporary Clerk in 1982, claimed his retiral benefits after his salary was withheld since March 2000. Despite being promoted and receiving regular salary, the respondents later deemed his appointment irregular and denied him benefits.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had been allowed to continue in service, received promotions, and had a maintained service book. The withholding of salary without departmental proceedings was deemed illegal.

Issues: 1) Whether the appointment of the original petitioner was illegal or irregular? 2) Can the salary of the petitioner be withheld without departmental proceedings after years of service and promotions?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appointment, although initially irregular, was effectively regularized by the passage of time and the lack of any challenge during the petitioner's service. The withholding of salary without due process was unlawful.

Final Decision: The court quashed the orders denying the petitioner his salary and directed the respondents to release his withheld salary from March 2000 until his retirement within 12 weeks.

JUDGMENT :

S.N.PATHAK, J.

Heard the parties.

2. The original petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the memo No. 190 dated 08.11.2019 issued by Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Bokaro, whereby he has rejected the claim of petitioner for his retiral benefits.

Further prayer has been made for quashing the reasoned order as contained in memo No. 15/J-07-04/2015-513 (26) dated 09.03.2016 passed by respondent No. 3 whereby he has held the appointment of original petitioner as irregular and illegal and as such, the benefits of promotion given to him is not as per law and as such, he is not entitled for retiral benefits as well as arrears of salary and other allowances.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the office of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Dhanbad vide memo No. 1312 dated 28.12.1982 on temporary basis for three months. Thereafter, his service was extended for further one month purely on temporary basis vide order contained in memo No. 477 dated 24.03.1983. It is the further case of petitioner that while continuing to discharge his duties, an advertisement was floated in the daily newspaper namely, ‘Awaaz’ on 22.02.1983 under the signature of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Dhanbad for appointment on various posts including the post of Clerk on which the petitioner was working though on temporary basis. In pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner submitted his application for appointment to the post of Assistant/Clerk and subsequently, the respondent issued interview letter to the petitioner on 02.04.1983 fixing the date of interview on 12.04.1983. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the Board for interview along with other candidates and after having found suitable, the respondents issued office order No. 589 dated 19.04.1983, whereby his services was extended until further orders. Since thereafter, the petitioner has been discharging his duties as a Clerk and had been getting salary regularly. It is the case of petitioner that while discharging his duties, the services of petitioner was made permanent and he was given promotion from time to time. The petitioner was promoted to the Junior Selection Grade w.e.f. 30.12.1990 vide office memo No. 2998 dated 05.10.1991 and subsequently, he was given selection grade vide office order No. 1170 dated 21.12.1998.

4. It is the further case of petitioner that all of a sudden, vide letter No. 1381 (22) dated 06.10.1998, purported to have been issued from the office of the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna was received in the office of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Bokaro wherein a direction was issued to make available all the relevant documents regarding the appointment of petitioner and thereafter, a second letter was also issued. Upon receipt of the said letters, when the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Bokaro enquired the matters from the concerned Department, then the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar Patna vide his letter dated 27.02.1999 has informed that the aforesaid letters are forged and has not been issued from his office. It is further case of petitioner that the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Bokaro has written letter dated 25.03.2000 to the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Dhanbad with regard to confirmation of appointment of petitioner.

In the meantime, the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Bokaro being confirmed with regard to genuine appointment of petitioner, directed the Medical Officer Incharge, Leprosy Control Unit, Chas vide its letter as contained in memo No. 323 dated 28.03.2000 to release the salary of the petitioner.

5. It is further case of original petitioner that while in service, the service book of petitioner was regularly maintained by the respondents wherein all the entries regarding appointment and promotions had been made. Though, no departmental proceeding has been i

          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