RAM LAKHAN PODDAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order contained in memo. No. 361 (Law) dated 11.06.2012 (Annexure-4) passed by the respondent No. 1, whereby the petitioner's claim of arrears of salary from 16.5.2001 to 19.12.2007 and calculation and payment of pensionary benefits treating the said period in continuity has been rejected.

(2.) It has been stated that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Supervisor at Jamua, District Giridih in Adult Education. He was, thereafter, transferred from one place to another. In 1992 the Department of Adult and Non-Formal Education merged into a unified department and was brought under the Directorate of Adult and Non-Formal Education. Consequently, number of posts were abolished which affected several employees. The petitioner also became surplus due to abolition of the post. However, he was neither retrenched nor his service was terminated. Subsequently, in the light of the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 298/2002 a committee was constituted for absorption of the employees whose posts were abolished. On that basis, the respondent No. 2 took a resolution for adjusting services of the petitioner and others. The petitioner was absorbed on the post of Supply Inspector by letter No. 2156 dated 20.12.2007. The petitioner, thereafter, worked at several places and on attaining the age of superannuation, retired on 31.07.2010. The petitioner, however, was not paid his salary for the period from 16th May, 2001 to 19th December, 2007. As a consequence, the petitioner's retiral benefits were calculated treating the said period as not in service. Though, the petitioner was entitled to get salary of the said period no payment was made for the said period from 16.05.2001 to 19.12.2007. That period of service was also not counted for calculating the retiral benefits.

(3.) It has been submitted that since the petitioner was neither retrenched nor his service was terminated, he is entitled to get arrear of salary and calculation of the said period in continuity for fixing his pensionary benefits without any break in the service. The petitioner filed representation praying for payment of arrear of salary for the said period and also for calculation and payment of the retiral dues in accordance with law. The respondents by order dated 11.06.2012 rejected the petitioner's claim.