Jitan Singh vs State Of Bihar

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

The petitioner was put under suspension in the light of the recommendation of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division,

Muzaffarpur on 25th June, 2001. Subsequently, the order of suspension was revoked. The petitioner was paid salary for the period of suspension.

However, he was not paid salary from 03.09.2003 to 23.09.2005, the period after revocation of his suspension.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has drawn the attention of the Court to the order passed by the District Education Officer

which indicates that the petitioner could not join the Headquarters after proper relieving order from the school in question on suspension.

The order of suspension was issued by the Director, Secondary Education and the Headquarter of the petitioner was fixed in the office of the

District Education Officer, East Champaran, Motihari and as such after the suspension it was obligation of the District Education Officer to relieve the

petitioner and if the petitioner was not relieved, he cannot be fastened with the accountability for non-joining and denying salary on the ground of no

work no pay.

From the pleadings it appears that the District Education Officer, East Champaran, Motihari where the Headquarter of the petitioner was fixed, has

not taken any step to relieve the petitioner and without being relieved from the office of the District Education Officer, East Champaran, Motihari the

petitioner could not have joined after revocation of suspension and denying salary for the aforesaid period on the ground that the petitioner has not

joined the service for the aforesaid period is unsustainable.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court towards Annexures 7 and 8 to contend that petitioner had approached the

respondent-District Education Officer for issuing relieving order so that he may join the school at Hazi Farjand High School, Phenhara, East

Champaran after revocation of suspension but no order was passed by the District Education Officer. In the aforesaid circumstances, denying salary

to the petitioner amounts to taking advantage of their own wrong as the respondents have not relieved the petitioner and denying the salary for the

aforesaid period for their default is impermissible.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to work out the entitlement of the petitioner for the purpose of payment of salary

for the period from 3.9.2003 to 23.09.2005 and entire payment shall be made to the petitioner within a maximum period of four months from the date

of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.