MAYA SHANKAR THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Gajendra Kumar Jha-2, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the State.

(2.) The prayer of the Petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:

(3.) Mr. Jha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has submitted that when the Petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding on 9.3.1994 vide Annexure-1 to the writ application and his such suspension was revoked by an order dated 8th February 2000 in keeping with the observation made in the order of this Court dated 3.8.1999 in CWJC No. 6527 of 1999, the Petitioner would also be entitled for payment of his full salary with all increments of the period of suspension, but the authorities while fixing the pay of the Petitioner after revocation of suspension have not granted increments for the years 1994 to 1999 and that is how the Petitioner is perennially suffering the monetary loss. Mr. Jha, in this context has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Balvantrai Ratilal Patel v. State of Maharastra, 1968 AIR(SC) 800, as also in the case of Mritunjai Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1971 AIR(All) 214, to buttress his submission that suspension per se does not disentitle an employee from getting the increments of the suspension period.