BASANT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court challenging orders dated 22.06.1999 and 14.06.2001.

(2.) THE petitioner was working at Primary Health Centre, Chandwa at Palamau Surgency since March 1991. As his salary was not paid to him, he moved an application being C.W.J.C. No. 10952 of 1992 at Patna, which was disposed of with a direction to make a representation. As the order of the High Court was not complied with the petitioner filed a contempt case. During the pendency of the contempt case, major part of the salary of the petitioner was paid. The contempt case was dropped vide order dated 03.01.1996. On 31.12.1996, the petitioner was transferred from Primary Helath Centre, Chandwa at Palamau to the office of the Civil Surgeon, Deoghar. However, it appears that by order dated 19.03.1997, transfer of all the Ophthalmic Assistants were ordered not to be given effect to and orders of transfer were stayed with immediate effect. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the order dated 19.03.1997, he should not have been relieved. However, by order dated 20.03.1997 he was relieved from the post. The petitioner tried to give his joining to the concerned authorities, however, such joining was not accepted. The petitioner made repeated attempts to join his post but for one reason or the other, it was not accepted by the concerned authorities. The petitioner again moved the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1535 of 1997(R) for payment of salary due to him for the period since November 1995 along with arrears of salary and for quashing of order dated 20.03.1997, whereby he was transferred. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation. It is the case of the petitioner that inspite of representation, his grievance has not been redressed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has instructions from his client to submit to this Court that though the salary may not be paid to the petitioner, but the period of absence should not be treated as the period of unauthorised leave.