GANESH KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties and with their consent, this writ application is disposed of at the stage of admission.

(2.) Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the outset that the petitioner had originally prayed in this writ application for a direction upon the respondents to reinstate him in service and to regularize his services on the sanctioned post of Assistant treating his services as continuous ever since the date of his joining on 10.11.1989. Learned counsel explains that during the pendency of this writ application, the respondents have recalled the order of the petitioner's termination and even regularized his services with effect from 13.07.2007. However, despite the fact that the concerned authorities have agreed on principle that the petitioner is entitled for salary on the minimum scale from 05.05.1995 to 28.02.2000, the difference of salary of minimum scale has not been paid to him as yet. Furthermore, since the respondents have voluntarily recalled the earlier order of the petitioner's termination of service and have not only reinstated him but also regularized him in service from 2007, the petitioner is certainly entitled to the payment of wages for the period between the date of his dismissal and the date of his reinstatement and regularization in service.

(3.) Though counter affidavit was originally filed in this writ application denying and disputing the entire claim made by the petitioner, but in the light of the subsequent developments adverted to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the only issue which remains to be considered by the respondents is the petitioner's demand for payment of the back wages as also his demand for payment of the difference of salary on the minimum scale, as indicated above.