AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar Verma, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Vandana Singh, the learned State counsel assisted by Mr.
Sandeep Verma, the learned vice counsel.
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.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 17.06.2020 contained in Annexure-5 and for quashing the order dated
03.09.2020 contained in Annexure-7.
The petitioners are posted as Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 02.04.2012 against the vacant and sanctioned post in R.C.Middle School, Saude in Raniya
Block of Khunti District in the Matric Trained pay scale of Rs.9300-34800/-, Grade pay Rs.4200/-. Pursuant to the advertisement published on
20.03.2012, the petitioners joined the post of Assistant Teacher on 02.04.2012 which was duly accepted by the Headmaster of the said school. The
Area Education Officer on 02.05.2012 submitted all the relevant papers to the District Superintendent of Education, Khunti for approval of the
appointment of the petitioners. Thereafter, the District Superintendent of Education, Khunti granted the approval of the appointment of the petitioners
on the post of Assistant Teacher against the vacant and sanctioned post in R.C.Middle School, Saude under Raniya Block of Khunti District in the
aforesaid scale and grade pay. For approval of the pay fixation of the petitioners, the requisite papers were sent to the Director, Primary Education,
Jharkhand by the District Superintendent of Education, Khunti in prescribed format on 01.06.2012 but the same was not decided and the petitioners
were deprived of the salary and in that view of the matter the petitioners were compelled to move before this Court in W.P.(S) No.1476/2018, W.P.
(S) No.5687/2018 and W.P.(S) No.5688/2018, respectively. W.P.(S) No.1476/2018 was disposed of vide order dated 25.07.2018 with a direction to
the respondent Director Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand to take a decision within six weeks and if there is no legal impediment to pay
within three weeks. The same order was passed in W.P.(S) No.5678/2018 and W.P.(S) No.5688/2018. When the order of the Court was not
complied the petitioners were compelled to file Contempt (Civil) Nos.740/2018, 701/2019 and 717/2019. In the contempt proceeding, the contemnors
were allowed time to file show cause. The respondent State allotted the required fund and sent the same in the account of drawing and disbursing
officer and in the month of March, 2020 on the joint prayer of the counsels of the petitioner as well as the respondent State, the aforesaid Cont. Case
(Civil) No.740 of 2018 was disposed of on 06.03.2020. By the impugned order, the direction was issued to withdraw the contempt petition otherwise
the salary of the petitioners will not be paid w.e.f. June, 2020. In the same line, the order 03.09.2020 has been passed whereby again the same thing
was repeated. In the light of these two orders, it is found that on the strength of not complying the earlier order for withdrawal of the contempt
proceeding, these two orders have been passed and thereby the petitioners are not paid their salary w.e.f. June, 2020.
Mrs. Vandana Singh, the learned State counsel assisted by Mr. Sandeep Verma, the learned counsel tried to justify the order by way of referring
certain paragraphs of the counter affidavit.
Respondent no.4 in para-12 and part of para-13 of the counter affidavit has tried to justify the action. Paragraph no.12 and part of para13 of the
counter affidavit are reproduced hereinbelow:
That it is humbly stated and submitted that the petitioners are getting salary on regular basis as they have been paid salary from March, 2019 to
May, 2020, inspite of above facts the petitioners moved before the Hon'ble Court by filing contempt petitions to harass the respondents.
................. That it is further stated and submitted that in-spite of request made to them the petitioners did not bother to reply the request
thereafter, show cause was filed by the opposite party.
That it is further stated and submitted that after lapse of about three months of request the order for stopping of salary has been passed as such, the
petitioners are responsible for this action. If they would reply to the letter issued from respondent no.4 then the said action against them could not
happened. Hence, prayer made in the instant writ petition is not sustainable in the eye of law
On perusal of these two documents, it transpires that the authority concerned has passed these two orders on his whims. The contempt proceeding
was already disposed of on 06.03.2020 on the submission of both the sides. The disposal orders are already on the record. The first order has been
passed on 17.06.2020 i.e. after more than three months of withdrawal and the subsequent order is dated 03.09.2020. Thus, it is clear that this order is
arbitrary in nature, rather it can be safely said that it is an excathedra announcement. A person whose right is being affected is competent to approach
the Constitutional Courts and for approaching the Courts, there is no authority to any person particularly the State under Article 12 of the Constitution
of India to pass such order. It is well settled that if a person is deterred in any case from approaching the Court for his right under Constitution of India
it would amount to serious and direct interference in the administration of justice. Moreover, the contempt proceeding was already dropped on
06.03.2020, and for not withdrawing the contempt proceeding, the impugned orders have been passed which is against the mandate of law.
Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 17.06.2020 and dated 03.09.2020 are quashed. The respondent State is directed to release the salary of the
petitioners forthwith.
The petitioners shall be entitled to a cost of Rs.25,000/- each within a period of six weeks by the respondent State. The Government of Jharkhand is
at liberty to deduct the cost of the amount from the erring officer. The payment receipt of the cost shall be filed before this Court within the aforesaid
period.
With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.