ARBIND PRASAD SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND
LAWS(JHAR)-2013-9-20
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on September 06,2013

ARBIND PRASAD SINHA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner has approached this Court for payment of arrear of salary since December, 1995 as well as current salary with interest as though he has been continuously working under the respondents and despite directions issued by Higher Authorities upon the respondent no. 5 in the matter, the salary of the petitioner is not being paid. The petitioner is Junior Engineer presently posted at Ormanjhi Block, Ranchi and working under the Block Development Office, Ormanjhi. From perusal of paragraph 5 of the writ petition itself, it appears that the petitioner was transferred vide order dated 27th November, 1995 to the Block Development Office, Simdega on 1st December, 1995. He was relieved on 19th February, 1996 to join the office of EngineerinChief, Rural Works Department, Patna. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred and he joined at Block Development Officer, Thethaitangar on 6th January, 1997. He was again perhaps transferred and submitted his joining on 2nd July, 1998 in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj. The petitioner joined at Block Development Officer, Sahebganj. Thereafter, again he submitted his joining on 27th December, 1999 at the office of Deputy Commissioner, Gumla on transfer. Again he submitted his joining on transfer being made at the office of Block Development Office, Kamdara on 22nd May, 2000. Finally on 14th August, 2007 he joined in the office of Block Development Office at Ormanjhi and thereafter he is working in the present office since 16th August, 2007. In such circumstances, it is the grievance of the petitioner that he kept on requesting the concerned authorities for payment of salary which is due since December, 1995, but the same has not been paid.
(3.) THE respondents were earlier directed either to release the arrear of salary of the petitioner or to show cause as to why such arrears of salary is not being released to the petitioner. The petitioner preferred a contempt petition being Cont. Case (Civil) No. 936 of 2012, as according to him, the said order was not being complied with.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.