Pranav Kumar vs Deputy Commissioner, Koderma

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to release the salary, which has been withheld from

December, 2015 to 16.05.2016 and from 01.12.2016 to till date and also pay him the arrears of salary of the current months. Further prayer has been

made to pay the amount towards earned leave from 17.05.2016 to 30.11.2016 and to recall the order of deputation dated 17.04.2017.

  The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Health Educator on 29.10.1992 and had

been working as Health Educator at Nawada (Bihar). In the year, 2007, the petitioner was transferred to Jharkhand State and was posted at Addl.

Primary Health Centre, Chandwara as Health Educator and is working on the said post for about 24 years. On 03.02.2016, an inspection was made by

the D.D.C., Koderma at Addl. Primary Health Centre, Chandwara and seven employees (including petitioner) were found absent at about 10:10 am

and the matter was reported before the Deputy Commissior, Koderma (respondent No.2). Thereafter, the salary of the petitioner and six others

persons were stopped by respondent No.2 and a written explanation was called for. In view of the show cause, the petitioner filed written explanation

and after being satisfied with the said explanation, the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Koderma sent a letter No. 412 dated 17.03.2016 to

the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma stating therein about the acceptance of the explanation, filed by the petitioner and one Dr. Vineet Kumar.Â

  It is specific case of the petitioner that in spite of the acceptance of the explanation filed by the petitioner, the respondent No.2 wrongly stated

that the explanation filed by the petitioner was found unsatisfactory while the explanation filed by the other six employees was found satisfactory and

thus the salary of other six employees was released, except the petitioner vide Memo No. 284/Go/Koderma, dated 30.03.2016. Aggrieved thereby, the

petitioner represented before the respondent No.2 for payment of salary, but no heed was paid. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to move

this Court for redressal of his grievances.Â

  Mr. Awanikant Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is entitled for salary of the period which is

withheld by the respondents without any cogent reason. Learned counsel further argues that with mala fide and ulterior motive, the salary of the

petitioner was withheld though on the same ground salary of other six persons were released. Learned counsel further argues that even the period of

unauthorized absence could have been treated as earned leave and the salary could have been paid to the petitioner, but the same was not done

illegally. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court towards the representation filed by the petitioner regarding accident and submits that same

was not taken into consideration and petitioner remained absent only because of the accident and same could have been adjusted, by granting earned

leave. Learned counsel further argues that respondent No.4, Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre has issued the transfer order and

deputed the petitioner to a different Health Centre from Chandwara for which he was not empowered and as such, Memo No. 141, dated 17.04.2017

may be quashed and set aside.Â

  Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Kaustav Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the entire payment of salary till 16.05.2016 has already been released, which has

also been received by the petitioner. Learned counsel further argues that it was only the period of unauthorized absence for which the salary of the

petitioner was not paid as he was not entitled for the same. No representation was filed by the petitioner for adjustment of the period of unauthorized

absence with earned leave and in absence of such representation, no decision has been taken by the respondents. Learned counsel further argues that

the petitioner did not joined the transferred place till date as an obedient servant of the State, it was expected from him to obey the orders of the

superior. There is no illegality committed by the respondents.

  Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the records, admittedly the petitioner has received

the salary till 16.05.2016 and also the period of February, 2016, which is evident from Annexure-E to the counter-affidavit. Admittedly, the petitioner

remained unauthorized absent for the period from 17.05.2016 to 30.11.2016 and representation of the petitioner is disputed as the same was not

received by the office of the respondents. As regards deputation in different Health Centre from Health Centre, Chandwara, the petitioner did not join

the deputed post, the orders of Superior Officers have to be complied with and obeyed. The petitioner in complete defiance of order, did not join the

transferred post on the ground that the Incharge, Medical officer was not empowered to transfer/depute him. It was expected from the petitioner to

join the transferred place and then challenge the said order, if at all, it was without jurisdiction. In the instant case, it was not done.

  In the aforesaid premises, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation for adjustment of leave period from 17.05.2016 to 30.11.2016 as

earned leave. The respondents are directed to take a decision for adjusting the said period as earned leave, if the earned leave is due to the petitioner

in accordance with law. The petitioner is further directed to join the transferred place, if not joined, within a period of three weeks from the date of

this order. After joining the said transferred place, the petitioner if so advised, may represent before the competent authorities, bringing to their

knowledge about the said order, which was issued without jurisdiction.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.Â

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.Â