State of Jharkhand vs Sita Ram and Others

Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant State is aggrieved against the order dated 12.11.2008 passed in W.P. (S) No. 834 of 2005. The petitioner was appointed on 25.6.1979 as a Peon under the Adult Education Department Government of Bihar. Thereafter, on 25.07.1985, considering his qualification, he was appointed to vacant class III post of Typist cum Clerk. Then the said Adult Education,. Department was converted into Mass Education Department under the Directorate of Primary Education. The petitioner''s services were taken on deputation on the post of Typist cum Clerk under the Secondary Education under the Directorate of Secondary Education. The Department of Mass Education was closed with effect from 15.5.2001 and salary of the petitioner was stopped. The petitioner thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 1182 of 2002 before this Court, which was disposed of directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, both for payment of salary and adjustment in the Directorate of Primary & Secondary Education i.e., the Department, in which, he was already working on a vacant post. The petitioner''s grievance was that he was not paid salary from February, 2002 till January, 2008.

The respondents came up with a plea that: petitioner was an ex-employee of the Mass Education Department and consequent upon the closure of the said Department the petitioner ceased to be an employee. His services were continued to be taken up-to 25.10.2002. However from the document filed by the petitioner, it was found that subsequently the State Government took a decision and conveyed it by notification dated 1.02.2008 to adjust and absorb altogether 167 additional employees and in that view of the matter the petitioner was adjusted under the upgraded +2 Standard Secondary School, Ormanjhi, Ranchi and this fact has been admitted.

In view of the above reasons, the learned Singh Judge allowed the writ petition and observed that the petitioner was in service is an admitted fact and the plea that his parent department was abolished cannot be a ground to deny his arrears of salary. We do not find any illegalities in the impugned order. Hence, the L.P.A, having no merit, is dismissed.