JITENDRA PRASAD SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The contempt petitioners preferred writ petition being CWJC No.3495 of 1992(R), which was decided by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 20th August, 1999. In the writ petition, petitioners' prayer was for direction on the respondentState to provide grant of finance for the 2nd sanctioned post of Botany and Zoology in the College i.e., Gossner College, Ranchi, in view of the order contained in Memo no. 962 dated 26th May, 1979. The petitioners' writ petition was allowed and direction was issued to the respondents to release appropriate grant in favour of the College in question for payment of salary to the petitioners, who were holding the post sanctioned vide letter no.338 dated 1st May,1987. It was further directed to make payment within a period of six months from the date the post were so sanctioned i.e., 1st May, 1987.

(2.) IT is also ordered that on receipt of such amount, the College authorities were liable to pay salary to the incumbents who are holding such sanctioned post, including the arrears of salary from 1st May, 1987. Against the above judgment dated 20th August, 1999, the State preferred Letters Patent Appeal no. 158 of 2000(R), which was decided vide order dated 25th April, 2000. In the order dated 25th April, 2000, while dismissing the State's Letters Patent Appeal, it has been observed that " it is not in dispute that the post as such were sanctioned and the petitioners of the writ application were appointed on the posts of Lecturers after due advertisement in the year 1980".

(3.) THEREAFTER, the Principal of the College has submitted supplementary affidavit stating therein that College has already not only paid the entire due salary time to time to the contempt petitioners, but in fact some excess amount has been paid because petitioners salary has been fixed at Rs.800013500/( prerevised scale Rs.22004000) with effect from 1.5.1987. The College had been making payment of salary to the petitioners at the scale of Reader i.e., at the scale of Rs.1200018300/. It is again submitted that the petitioners have been fixed at the scale of Rs.800013500/ whereas petitioners had been receiving salary in excess from the College at the pay scale of Rs.1200018300/ and, therefore, the petitioners received excess salary which is liable to be recovered from the petitioners. Then it is submitted that now the respondents had demanded the amount of Rs.82,79,854/ against the salary of the petitioners for the period 1987 to 2007 and in the said letter it is mentioned that the above amount would be adjusted against the salaries of the petitioners and it is also mentioned therein that if any excess amount is there then the amount be recovered.