Akbar Mian S/o Late Sadique Mian vs State of Jharkhand

The petitioner is aggrieved of order contained in Notification

dated 31.12.2016, whereby he has been repatriated to the Department of

Road Construction, Government of Jharkhand. Another prayer is for

payment of arrears of salary from January, 2016.

Heard.

Referring to the previous order of transfer and orders passed by

this Court in W.P.(S) No.198 of 2016 and Contempt Case (Civil) No.146 of

2016, Shri Sohail Anwar, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner

submits that the narration of the events would unerringly disclose that the

petitioner has been systematically harassed by the Secretary of the

Department. It is contended that the impugned order dated 31.12.2016 is

an out-come of the animosity which the Secretary, respondent no.-4 bears

against the petitioner.

Mr. Manoj Kumar No.3, the learned State counsel, however,

refutes the allegations made by the petitioner. It is submitted that the

petitioner who was previously posted in the Department of Road

Construction has now again been sent to the said Department, and while

so, the petitioner cannot have an grievance on that count. It is submitted

that merely for the reason that the previous Secretary, namely, Mast Ram

Meena, who was Secretary, Department of Rural Development has now

been posted as Secretary, Department of Road Construction, no inference

can be drawn that the impugned order of transfer dated 31.12.2016 has

been issued at his instance.

From the materials brought on record, it is apparent that the

impugned order of transfer dated 31.12.2016 has been issued by the order

of the Governor, State of Jharkhand. The Secretary, respondent no.4 is not

involved in any manner whatsoever with the decision repatriating the

service of the petitioner to the Department of Road Construction and while

so, no inference of mala fide, insofar as, the order contained in Notification

dated 31.12.2016 is concerned, can be drawn. Accordingly, challenge to

the Notification dated 31.12.2016 insofar as, it concerns the petitioner,

fails. However, from the materials brought on record, it appears that

pursuant to order dated 29.04.2016 passed in Contempt Case (Civil)

No.146 of 2016 the petitioner gave his joining on 04.05.2016. It is pleaded

that the petitioner has not been paid salary and other allowances. Order

dated 02.09.2016 passed by the Department of Rural Development would

indicate that the Department has taken a stand that till 03.05.2016 the

petitioner was absent unauthorizedly.

In view of the aforesaid facts, without commenting on the stand

taken by the respondents on unauthorised absence of the petitioner, I am

of the opinion that the petitioner must be paid salary etc. after 04.05.2016.

Accordingly, the respondent no.2 shall ensure that payment of salary to the

petitioner from 04.05.2016 to 31.12.2016 is made, within two weeks from a

copy of this order is communicated to him. Further, the respondent no.4 is

directed to ensure that on joining the petitioner at Ranchi (Headquarters),

he shall be paid salary and other allowances.

The writ-petition stands dismissed insofar as, challenge to

Notification dated 31.12.2016 is concerned, however, it is allowed in part

in, the aforesaid terms.