RAMDEEP PRASAD VISHWAKARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY Court: Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) INITIALLY , the petitioner had sought a direction upon the respondents to release the salary for the period of his suspension from 7th June 2000 to 15th May 2002 as according to the petitioner, his suspension should have been treated as revoked on completion of one month period as per order passed on 10th September 2001 in WPS No. 3263/01. However, during the pendency of the writ application, an order dated 04th February 2005 contained at Annexure-16 has been passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi imposing punishment which has been challenged by the writ petitioner by way of I.A. No. 1191/05 and the prayer to challenge the subsequent development taken place during the pendency of the writ application, has also been allowed by order dated 28th October 2009. By the said order of punishment, he has been inflicted with the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect and he would not be entitled to full salary for the period of suspension except his subsistence allowance.

(3.) THE petitioner thereafter pursued a contempt petition as the order was not being complied and neither was his suspension revoked, nor any departmental proceeding was initiated. Vide order dated 03rd May 20022 passed in Cont. Case (Civil)No. 28/2002, this Court observed that in view of the order passed in WPS No. 3263/01, charges were not framed and served in connection with the departmental inquiry of the petitioner within a period of one month of the order, the suspension would stand revoked automatically. Thereafter, the petitioner was permitted to join on 16th May 2002 as In-charge Headmaster of the Government High School, Pradhankhanta, in the district of Dhanbad where he was posted earlier. In such circumstances, he made a prayer for payment of salary for the period of his suspension from 7th June 2000 till 15th May 2002. However, since the respondents failed to respond to the petitioner's request despite several representations, present writ application was filed with the original relief as indicated in the first paragraph of this judgment.