High CourtsSingle Bench

Binod Singh vs State of Jharkhand And Ors

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 10 July 2020 · Citation: (2020) 07 JH CK 0099

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition(S) No. 842 of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

21 paragraphs · 366 words
1.

Heard Mr. Raj Kishore Sahu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Manav Poddar, AC to AAG-I appearing on behalf of the

respondent-State.

2.

This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising

due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been

heard.

3.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a direction to make payment of salary to the petitioner from June, 1997 till today for the post of

Jeep Driver.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Jeep Driver in the pay scale of Rs.950-20-1150-25-

1500/- under the work charged establishment by the Regional Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Ranchi as contained in

Annexure-1. He submits that the petitioner has not been paid the salary for the above period. From the paragraph no.9 of the writ petition, it transpires

that the petitioner himself is not sure as to whether he is still in service or not and whether there is any termination order or not. The petitioner is not in

a position to say as to whether the petitioner is working at present or not. However, the petitioner has filed several representations as contained in

Annexure-4, 5 and 6 to the writ petition.

5.

The learned counsel for the respondent State fairly submits that the authority concerned will take a decision on the representation of the petitioner

which are pending.

6.

In view of the paragraph no.9 of the writ petition, the Court is not entering into the merits of the case, however, the petitioner is directed to file fresh

representation before the respondent no.2 within four weeks.

7.

If such a representation is filed within the aforesaid period, the respondent no.2 shall take a decision in accordance with rules, regulations and

guidelines within a period of 8 weeks thereafter and will pass a reasoned order.

8.

The writ petition [W.P.(S) No.842 of 2020] stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction.

9.

I.A. if any also stands disposed of.