BISHWANATH MAHATO AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. H.K. Mahato, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Government Advocate.

(2.) The grievance of the writ petitioners in the instant case is that notwithstanding a specific direction having been made by this Court in an earlier writ petition on 22.9.2000 in CWJC No. 3283 of 2000 (R), the respondents totally veered off at a tangent and issued the order dated 25.4.2001 using words which are totally incorrect and erroneous on the fact of the record. According to the writ petitioners, they were appointed in the year 1995 and from January, 1996 the petitioner Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were not given any salary and similarly from May, 1996 the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 were not paid their respective salary.

(3.) The petitioners have asserted that they were appointed as Village Extension Worker pursuant to an advertisement issued in 1990 whereas the respondents have stated that they were appointed under the World Bank Agricultural Extension Project and the same project came to an end in July, 1993 itself. Being aggrieved by the non -payment of salary, the writ petitioners came before this Court in the earlier writ petition indicated above and this Court remanded the matter to the Agricultural Production Commissioner, Government of Bihar to determine the question relating to payment of salary of the petitioners and, if so required, on their adjustment against one or other vacant post. As a consequence of the coming into force of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 the petitioner represented before the appropriate authority of the State of Jharkhand and it appears that the said authority has gone to the extent of totally doubting the veracity and authenticity of the appointment of the petitioners. He has further stated that the aforesaid World Bank Scheme ended in the year 1993 and therefore he could not be appointed in the year 1995.