- (1.) PETITIONER was appointed as Private Secretary by the then Councillor of Jharkhand Area Autonomous Council (JAAC), Md. Naushad, on being nominated in the rank of Deputy Minister. As per the Rules of Executive Business and notification, Md. Naushad, Councillor of JAAC, was authorised to appoint a private person as Personal Secretary, on the fixed pay of Rs.
(2.) ,000/ and other admissible allowances. Undisputedly, tenure of Personal Secretary appointed privately by the Minister or the person having status of Minister is till the Minster holds his office. Undisputedly, JAAC was dissolved, vide order dated 17.09.1998 and the order dated 17.09.1998 was quashed by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench), vide judgment dated 02.02.1998 [Kumar Varun Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., 1999 (2) PLJR 420]. Petitioner is claiming salary for the period from 17.09.1998 to January 1999, when JAAC remained dissolved. 2. Payment was refused by the respondents on the ground that neither petitioner nor Md. Naushad, Councillor, remained in the office. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for any payment for the intervening period. Letter dated 01.03.2000 (Annexure B to the counter affidavit), would reveal that even Chairman, ViceChairman and Councillors were directed to refund the amount withdrawn by them for the intervening period i.e. with effect from 17.09.1998 to 01.02.1999, when JAAC stood dissolved. There is nothing on record to suggest that order dated 01.03.2000 was either quashed by the competent court or was recalled by the Government. Learned counsel for the parties have fairly submitted that if Councillor was paid allowances and honorarium for the intervening period then, petitioner is also entitled for the salary for the same period, since petitioner remained attached with Md. Naushad. However, if order dated 01.03.2000 (Annexure B to the counter affidavit) still stands good, petitioner shall not be entitled for any payment for the intervening period. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that let petitioner move a representation before the Respondent No. 2, who shall pass appropriate order thereon after verifying as to whether order dated 01.03.2000 still stands good or has been recalled.
(3.) IN view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction that petitioner shall move a representation before the Respondent No. 2 within 30 days from today and Respondent No. 2 on receiving the representation shall take decision thereon within 30 days thereafter, in the light of the observations made hereinabove.;