TARAK NATH GHOSH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for issuance of a writ or direction to the Union of India, the State of Bihar, Inspector-General of Police, Bihar, Accountant-General of Bihar and the Treasury Officer, Patna Secretariate asking them "to obey the order of this court and to put the petitioner back to his service as Special Officer, Political (General and Transport) Department and to make payments to him of his just and lawful dues and his salary and allowances to which he is entitled in the aforesaid post."

(2.) The circumstances in which this petition has been filed may be stated, in brief, as follows. The petitioner was holding the post of Special Officer, Political (General and Transport) Department of the Government of Bihar, when he received an order of suspension from the Government of India on the 31st July, 1964. He challenged that order in a writ application in this court in Misc. Judl. Case No. 1207 of 1964; and on the 31st March 1965: (reported in AIR 1967 Pat 81) this court quashed the suspension order. Subsequent to that, the petitioner has again been suspended by an order dated the 14th July, 1965; but we are not concerned with that at present. In the present application, the petitioner complained that in spite of the first order of suspension having been quashed by this court, he has not been allotted any work or has not been posted to any place and further, he has not been paid his legitimate dues to which he was entitled during the period of his suspension and for the period thereafter till the departmental inquiry was initiated.

(3.) In the return made by respondent 1 (the State of Bihar), it was stated that respondents 1 and 5 asked this court for a certificate to file an appeal against the judgment of this court quashing the suspension order and they were advised that the whole matter will have to be re-examined by the Supreme Court if the certificate was granted; and, in that view, the petitioner was not paid his salary for the period involved. During argument, we were told that a certificate had already been granted to the respondents and they were taking necessary steps for lodging an appeal before the Supreme Court. This, however, in our view, is no justification for withholding payment of the salary to the petitioner when his suspension was held to be invalid by this court. It is true that in the prevvious writ application, the petitioner had not asked for a writ in regard to the payment of his legitimate dues, if his suspension from service was quashed. But, all the same, after the judgment was delivered by this court and until that is modified or reversed by the Superior Court, the petitioner must be held not to have been under suspension till the second suspension order was passed on the 14th July 1965.