MOHD SULTAN Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has joined the service of the J and K State a clerk in the Industries and Commerce Sectt: on 3 -3 -60, in the grade of 60 -5 -100. There from the petitioner was transferred on promotion to Home Deptt. and from there the petitioner was transferred to the Directorate of Local Bodies, as Senior Asstt. Vide Govt, order No. 2831 -GD of 1973 dated 30 -X -73 and has now been transferred to the Civil Sectt, Law Deptt. on 4 -11 -78. He was confirmed as Senior Assistant in the grade of 220 -430 in the year 1974 and was drawing the maximum pay of the grade plus allowances which comes to Rs. 635/ - per month in Nov. 1978. When the petitioner was transferred to Law Deptt. he was not issued LPC by the Directorate of Local Bodies. The LPC was, however, later issued wherein it was mentioned that an amount of Rs. 1SOOO/ -was outstanding against him. According to the petitioner, this amount included the advances taken by him e. g. Festival advance, Advance pay and other things. On a query from the General Deptt. addressed to the Directorate of Local Bodies, Srinagar, regarding this outstanding amount, the petitioner was stopped to be paid the monthly dues, as alleged by the petitioner, from January, 1979. The petitioner has prayed that for about 15 months, he was not paid any dues. But at present because of an order of this court, he is being paid in full. He has claimed that the pay of about 15 months withheld may be directed to be released in his favour. No reply affidavit has been filed by the State even though several opportunities were given for this purpose and finally on 26 -9 -80, a Bench of this Court ordered as follows: Two weeks final opportunity is given to Mr. Bhat, to file the reply affidavit, failing which the petition will come up for hearing in the absence of reply affidavit. Put up after two weeks on a date to be fixed by the Dy. R.  Inspite of this final opportunity having been given no reply has been filed even by now.

(2.) MR .Bhat appearing for the State, submits and prays that last opportunity be given for filing the reply affidavit, as he has sent a draft reply for approval of the proper quarters, but has not received it back due to Office Mov. He seeks further adjournment of two weeks for this purpose and is prepared to pay costs as well.I, however, would not grant his prayer, because on 26 -9 -80 a Bench of this court had given him the final opportunity to file reply affidavit which he has not done. May be, the department concerned, may not have been helpful to the learned Addl : Advocate General in this regard, but this Court, feels bound by the orders passed by it on 26 -9 -80, and therefore, the prayer for grant of further time with regard to the filing of reply affidavit is rejected. The learned advocate General, has however, submitted his arguments as the learned counsel for the petitioner has also advanced arguments.

(3.) IT is admitted that the petitioner has neither been suspended nor dismissed from service in pursuance of the letter referred to above sent by the General Deptt. The petitions was still working in the Law Deptt and under an order of this court is getting his pay regularly. The only question that remains to be determined was whether under the circumstances of the case, he was entitled to recover arrears of pay for 15 months for which he was not paid by the Govt. when he joined the Department of Law (Sectt) as Senior Asstt.