GHANSHYAM PUROHIT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that respondents may directed by a writ of mandamus to make payment of salary to the petitioner for. the period from 27. 12. 1989 immediately by treating the petitioner to be on duty irrespective of the fact that was not allowed to mark his attendance in the register. THE petitioner has also claimed interest on the amount of unpaid salary.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as light Inspector in the Municipal Council, Churu in the year 1979 and continued there upto 26. 2. 1988. He was thereafter transferred from Churu to Municipal Council, Jodhpur by the order of the Director, Local bodies dated 19. 12. 1988, which was served on the petitioner on 26. 12. 1988, and he was relieved on 26. 12. 1988 in the after-noon. On being relived from Churu, the petitioner, reported for duty to the Administrator, Municipal Council, Jodhpur on 27. 12. 1988. But aforesaid authorities refused to take the petitioner on duty. THE petitioner reported daily on duty but he was not taken on duty. After waiting for few days the petitioner sent a telegram to the Director, Local Bodies Rajasthan, Jaipur with a confirmatory copy to the Superintending Engineer, Director Local Bodies, Jaipur. THEreafter the petitioner continued to sent telegrams and letters from time to time i. e. 9. 1. 1989, 25. 1. 1989. 14. 3. 1989 and 17. 4. 1989, but without any result. THE petitioner also sent two letters under postal certificate to the Director, Local Bodies. Inspite of all these communications, no steps were taken by the Director, Local Bodies to direct the Municipal Council to take the petitioner on duty. Ultimately the petitioner was transferred back Churu by the order of the Director dated 4. 7. 1989 and be reported back on duty to the Municipal -council. Churu, on 5. 7. 1989 in compliance of the aforesaid order: THE petitioner was not paid the salary from 27. 12. 1988 to 4. 7. 1989. repeatedly demanded by various communication and ultimately a sanction was issued for making payment of the petitioner of his after granting him leave in accordance with the rules. THE petitioner was paid his dues by treating him issued on leave from 27. 12. 1988 to 4. 7. 1989. In fact, the petitioner was given leave salary for the period 27. 12. 1988 to 4. 7. 1989. THErefore, the petitioner approached this Court on the ground that why the petitioner should be paid/leave salary for the aforesaid period when the petitioner was not at fault as he reported on duty to the Municipal council, Jodhpur in pursuance of the order passed by the Director. Local Bodies and the Municipal Council, Jodhpur has not taken him on duty. THErefore, he is not at fault and he should be treated on duty during this period and should be paid salary for this period instead of payment salary for the aforesaid period as leave salary.