ANUP KUMAR PAL Vs. PROF AMARNATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Taranath Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ajay Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Shri Binod Kumar Kanth, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. The respondent no. 1 has filed an additional show cause. The respondent no. 3 has also filed a show cause. The parties are heard at length. The parties are satisfied with the hearing afforded to them.

(2.) THE present contempt application under Section 12 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India has been filed by one Anup Kumar Pal, a class III employee against the respondents as according to the petitioner the respondents have wilfully and knowingly violated the orders passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6579 of 1998 (Anup Kumar Pal vs. The B.N. Mandal University & Ors.) on 27.9.1999 and order dated 10.8.2000 passed in Civil Review No. 312 of 1999 (Anup Kumar Pal vs. The B.N. Mandal University & Ors.).

(3.) THIS Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after taking into consideration the facts and the legal position observed that the post of Counter Clerk was created in terms with the staffing pattern for each of the constituent College. This Court also observed that in absence of specific order by the state it could not be held that no such post was existing. The Court observed that the authority should treat such post as created under staffing pattern in terms with Full Bench decision in case of Braj Kishore Singh vs. State of Bihar, 1997 (1) PLJR 509. The writ application was allowed and the matter was remitted to the respondents. They were required to take into consideration as to whether the post (Counter Clerk) against which the petitioner was working stood sanctioned/ deemed to be sanctioned in terms with staffing pattern or not and if such post stood sanctioned/deemed to be sanctioned in terms with staffing pattern and the petitioner comes within the zone of such post/ working against such post the authorities would be liable to pay salary to the petitioner for the period he actually performed the duties. The other direction issued by the court was that a decision in that respect be taken and communicated to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt/production of copy of the said order, in case of decision against the petitioner reasons be given and communicated to him. On such decision, admitted dues if any be paid within one month from the date of such decision.