State of Jharkhand vs Ram Karan Ram And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the appellant-State and the learned counsel for the petitioner respondent.

The appellant-State is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.12.2016, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, in W.P.(S) No. 964 of 2015, whereby the writ application filed by the respondent writ petitioner was allowed, quashing the order dated 15.01.2015, granting extraordinary leave to the petitioner for the period between 12.02.2014 to 29.09.2014, and treating the period to be leave without pay.

The facts of this case lie in a short compass. The writ petitioner was aggrieved by his order of transfer dated 25.02.2014, which he had challenged in this Court in W.P.(S) No. 955 of 2014, in which by order dated 10.03.2014, an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner, that in case he was not already relieved from the department, no coercive steps be taken against him. Thereafter, the petitioner gave his joining on 13.03.20014, before the Additional Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand and he was allowed to continue on his previous post of Joint Transport Commissioner. Subsequently, the petitioner followed the transfer order dated 25.02.2014, and gave his joining in the Department of Economics and Statistics on 30.09.2014. The petitioner was not paid his salary for the period from 12.02.2014 to 29.09.2014. Subsequently, by virtue of order dated 15.01.2015, the period between 12.02.2014 to 29.09.2014 was treated as extraordinary leave under Rule 236 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, and it was treated as leave without pay.

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 964 of 2015, which was adjudicated by the Hon'ble Single Judge, and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had not joined the transferred post in the Department of Economics and Statistics, pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court on 10.03.2014 in W.P.(S) No. 955 of 2014, as also taking into consideration the fact that the State Government had not filed any application for modification of that order, and that the joining of the petitioner on his previous post was accepted by none-else than the Additional Chief Secretary of the State Government, pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court, the Hon'ble Single Judge held that the petitioner was entitled to the salary for his entire period between 12.02.2014 to 29.09.2014 and accordingly, allowed the writ application, quashing the order dated 15.01.2015, and directing for payment of full salary, allowances, etc., to the petitioner for the said period. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant State has filed this L.P.A.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant State that the petitioner respondent had absented himself from duty for the period between 12.02.2014 to 29.09.2014 in gross disobedience of the order of the State Government, transferring him from the post of Joint Transport Commissioner to the equivalent post in the Department of Economics and Statistics, but the petitioner had not joined the said post and accordingly, on the basis of no work no pay, the petitioner was not entitled to his salary for that period. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

Learned counsel for the respondent writ petitioner, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer.

We find from the impugned order itself that the order dated 15.01.2015 was quashed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had challenged his transfer in W.P.(S) No. 955 of 2014, in which, pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner was allowed to continue on the previous post by the Additional Chief Secretary, who was also the In-charge of the Department of Transport. The petitioner ultimately joined his transferred post on 30.09.2014, but in the meantime, no effort was made by the State Government to get the interim order passed by the High Court modified, and accordingly, the Hon'ble Single Judge held that the petitioner was entitled to the salary and allowances for the entire period between 12.02.2014 to 29.09.2014.

We do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 15.12.2016, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, in W.P.(S) No. 964 of 2015, worth any interference in exercise of the L.P.A. jurisdiction.

There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, the aforesaid Interlocutory Application also stands dismissed.