RANJEET SOREN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this writ petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that the Respondents have not paid salary to the petitioner for the period running from 11th October, 2000 to 20th May, 2001. During this period, the petitioner was appointed as a Veterinary Doctor and he has joined the services on 11th October, 2000 and he was sent to get the training as per the direction given by the Director, Animal Husbandry, Government of Bihar vide letter dated 12th October, 2000 and to that effect, certificate was also given. These facts have been stated in paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the memo of the petition. Despite the training was directed by the respondents, the respondents have not paid salary from 11th October, 2000 6/5/2014 Page 80 Somaru Versus Central Coalfields Limited to 20th May, 2005. Similarly situated other writ petitioners had filed writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 5713 of 2002, which was decided in their favour vide judgment dated 21st November, 2003 (Annexure -8 to the memo of the petition). Thus, there was already a direction to make the salary to the similarly situated Veterinary Doctors. Against this order, Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 43 of 2004 was preferred by the State, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 6th March, 2006 (Annexure 8/A to the memo of the petition) and it has been stated by the Division Bench of this Court that there is no illegality if the State is directed to make the payment of salary for the period running from 15th November, 2000 onwards. In the case of the other writ petitioners, the period was slightly different, but, other facts are similar that they were appointed as Veterinary Doctors and they were sent to get training and during training period, the respondents had not paid salary, therefore, the writ petition was filed, which was allowed and L.P.A., preferred by the State was dismissed. The case of the petitioner is similar to the petitioner, who had preferred earlier writ petition. In the facts of the present case also, the petitioner was appointed as Veterinary Doctor and he has resumed duty on 11th October, 2000 and was sent for training, as stated in paragraphs 6 to 9 of the memo of the petition. This fact has not been denied in the counter affidavit, filed by the respondents and, therefore, let the suitable direction be given to the respondents to make the payment of salary for the aforesaid period.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent State submitted that they have paid salary to the petitioner only after completion of the training period, but the fact remains that the petitioner had joined the training for the period as stated hereinabove.

(3.) AS a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, I hereby direct the respondent State to make the payment of salary and other admissible allowances of the petitioner for the period running from 11th October, 2000 to 20th May, 2001, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of order of this Court.