Daniel Nag vs State of Jharkhand

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.—Petitioners are aggrieved of order dated 17.03.2009 wherein a direction was issued to relieve them from service. Another prayer is for direction to the respondents to make payment for the period the petitioners actually discharged their duties.

On 28.07.2015 when the matter was heard, the learned counsel for the petitioners informed the Court that the petitioners at Sl. no. 18, 19, 26, 27 and 28 were not pressing the writ petition against the order of termination.

Heard.

The learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, submits that at this stage the petitioners'' prayer is only for payment of honorarium to them till they actually discharged work. The learned counsel has referred to various documents annexed along with the supplementary affidavit dated 22.08.2015 to show that many of the petitioners continued to work till the year, 2012 and 2013.

The learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, however, opposes the prayer for payment of honorarium beyond the period reflected in order dated 17.03.2009.

The petitioners, who were appointed initially as para-teachers on 14.11.2002, vide order dated 17.03.2009 were discharged from service. It appears that on merger of NPS Pradhantola with Utkramit Madhya Vidyalaya vide order dated 09.11.2006, the petitioners'' services were dispensed with. It is stated that, in fact, on 03.04.2008 they were terminated from service, however, they continued to work for sometime.

The petitioners, it appears, approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4085 of 2008 for a direction for payment of honorarium from April, 2007. The writ petition stood disposed of vide order dated 15.09.2008 directing the State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council to consider the claim raised by the petitioner for payment of honorarium within six weeks.

Mr. Saurav Arun, the learned counsel for the Jharkhand Education Project Council-respondent no. 2 submits that vide impugned order dated 17.03.2009 a direction was issued for payment of honorarium to the petitioners for the work discharged by them only till the financial year, 2008-09. From the aforesaid order, it also appears that honorarium for the financial year, 2008-09 was transferred in the account of Village Education Committee.

As noticed above, the petitioners'' services were dispensed with vide order dated 17.03.2009. In so far as, payment of honorarium to the petitioners beyond 31.03.2009 is concerned, I am of the opinion that the work taken from the petitioners, if any, was not approved by the competent authority and was, in fact, in breach of direction issued on 17.03.2009. Accordingly, no direction can be issued to the respondents for payment of honorarium to them for the period beyond 31.03.2009. The learned counsel for the petitioners refers to a decision in "Dhaneshwar Manjhi and others v. State of Jharkhand and others" [W.P.(S) No. 720 of 2013] and submits that a similar order may be passed in the instant case also. On perusal of order dated 20.11.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 720 of 2013, it appears that the applicants therein were directed by the authority to continue to work even after termination, however, in the instant case no such order of the competent authority has been brought on record referring to which a similar direction can be issued in the instant case.

Considering the aforesaid facts, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioners shall be paid honorarium for the work discharged by them till 31.03.2009, if already not paid.