Om Prakash Gupta vs State of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for a direction upon the respondent-authorities to pay the arrear and

current salary to the petitioner.

Mr. A.K.Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the matter is very old, as such it would suffice, if the petitioner is granted

liberty to file a fresh representation before the respondent-authorities only with respect to salary for the period work done and the respondents may be

directed to inquire with relevant records and pay the legitimate dues for which the petitioner has worked.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that vide Annexure- A to the counter-affidavit the Respondents have rejected the claim of

regularization; as such the petitioner may be given liberty to challenge the aforesaid order before the appellate authority.

Mr. Rohan Kashyap, learned counsel for the respondent-State fairly submits that if any representation will be filed; the same will be verified from

relevant documents and necessary order will be passed. He further submits that the petitioner is always at liberty to challenge the order before the

appellate authority.

In view of the limited submission of learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ application is, hereby, disposed of by giving liberty to the

petitioner to file a fresh representation along with supporting documents before the respondent no.4 within a period of 10 weeks. If any such

representation is filed before the respondent no.4; he shall look into the matter and if the petitioner is found eligible for salary, necessary order shall be

passed for payment of salary. It goes without saying that the petitioner is always at liberty to challenge the impugned order before the appellate

authority which has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit.

With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ application stands disposed.