PERMOD KOHLI, J. - (1.) WHILE disposing of W.P.(S) No. 2013 of 2002, this Court passed the following directions: As the petitioners of this case are similarly placed the respondents are directed to accept the joining of the petitioners who have already submitted or submits within four weeks from today. So far as posting of petitioners are concerned it will be open to the competent authority to issue appropriate notification of posting or may allow the petitioners to continue at the places, where they were posted prior to termination of their services. So far as salary are concerned, the competent authority will determine the claim and pay the admitted dues fro. n the date of joining within two months and will also determine the question relating to payment of arrears within there months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In case of any adverse decision is taken by respondents they will communicate the ground to the petitioner(s) within the period aforesaid. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions/observations.
(2.) THE first direction was to permit the petitioners to join. The second direction relates to determination of the claim of the petitioners and for payment of admitted dues from the date of joining within two months. These two directions have been complied with. The next direction of the Court was to determine the question relating to payment of arrears within three months and if any adverse decision is taken, to communicate the ground to the petitioner(s) within the aforesaid period of three months. On account of non -payment of arrears within three months, present contempt proceedings have been initiated. Admittedly when the proceedings were initiated, the opposite parties had also not passed any order with reasons to deny the claim of the petitioner for arrears of salary. It appears that on being served with the copy of this contempt application, the then Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, namely, Mr. Sudhir Tripathy, passed the order dated 15 th December, 2005, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for arrears of salary.
(3.) WHEN this matter was taken up on 18 th August, 2006 it was observed that the order has been complied with partially. The Court further observed that arrears of salary has not been paid, as directed by the Court, and, accordingly, final opportunity of four weeks time was allowed to the opposite parties to comply the Courts order in its entirety and on failure to do so, opposite parties were directed to appear in person. The matter was again taken up on 22 nd September, 2006. Neither the order was complied with nor the opposite parties appeared in person. Accordingly, the opposite parties were directed to be summoned through bailable warrant for their appearance on 24 th November, 2006. On this date i.e. 24 th November, 2006, the matter was heard and prima facie it appeared that the petitioner is not entitled to arrears of salary on account of subsequent event i.e. setting aside of the original judgment, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3345 of 1997 and analogous cases, by a Division Bench of Patna High Court. As a consequence of this, petitioners in the said writ petition, including the present petitioner, were relegated to the position where the termination order became operative. It is shocking to note that the judgment of the Division Bench came to be passed on 29 th January, 2003 and in the light of this judgment, petitioners were not entitled to arrears of salary. But the opposite parties maintained silence and no order was passed, as directed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2013 of 2002, which was otherwise required to be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the judgment. Assuming, on account of pendency of Letters Patent Appeal, the opposite parties thought it proper not to pass the order, but at least after passing of the judgment by the Patna High Court in L.P.A. No. 678 of 2000 and analogous appeals, decided on 29 th January, 2003, such an order should have been passed. In the meanwhile, it has come on record that some of the petitioners whose termination became operative with the passing of the judgment in L.P.A. No. 678 of 2000 and analogous appeals, also received salary despite their termination having become operative. In this manner negligence on the part of the concerned officer has caused huge financial loss to the state exchequer. It is only after the service of a copy of this contempt petition that the order dated 15 th December, 2006 came to be passed. When the matter was heard on 24 th November, 2006 this Court while exempting the personal appearance of Mr. P.P. Sharma and Mr. Sudhir Tripathy for the said date, directed all the officer to appear today, except Mr. P.P. Sharma whose presence was not found required. Today Mr. Tripathy, the then Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, is present in Court. Other officers, namely, Sri Satendra Singh, present Director, Panchayati Raj, and Sri Vijay Kumar Singh, opposite party No. 4, are also present.;