GIRIJA SHANKAR DUBEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioners who had instituted W.P. (S) No. 1951 of 2006 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 31st October, 2012, whereby the prayer of these appellants (original petitioners) for making payment of arrears of salary after 2002 till date for working on the post of Road Roller Drivers in Public Works Department, Road Construction Division, Dhanbad, has been dismissed.

(2.) COUNSEL for the appellants submitted that these appellants were appointed as a Road Roller Drivers in the year 1988 as a daily workers. They have worked for the period in which the salary is mentioned in the memo of petition i.e. after 2002 they have worked as a Road Roller Drivers and as the salary has not been paid, the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. No. 1951 of 2006 was instituted by these appellants. As a proof of their working, these appellants are relying upon annexures annexed with the Memo of Appeal and the recommendation, etc made by the Executive Engineer which are annexed as Annexures 5, 6 7, 8 and 9. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that Annexures 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are the evidences of the work done by these appellants and, hence, the salary ought to have been made by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1951 of 2006 dated 31st October, 2012 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the State also who has submitted that on more than one occasions in the writ petition, the counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents and categorically it has been stated that they were not given any work, hence, they are not entitled for any salary because they have not worked at all as a daily wagers as Road Roller Drivers. This decision was taken in pursuance of several circulars issued by the Government which are also annexed in the writ petition that daily wagers shall not be appointed by the Government officers. It is also submitted by the counsel for the State that previously also these very appellants had preferred writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 5933 of 2002 which was dismissed vide order dated 31st July, 2003. Thereafter, Letters Patent Appeal was preferred by these appellants being L.P.A. No.569 of 2003 which was also dismissed vide order dated 11th December, 2003. Thereafter, the original petitioner No.1 had preferred a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6843 of 2005. That was also dismissed vide order dated 05.04.2006. and, thereafter, Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the present appellant No.1 being L.P.A. No.302 of 2006 which was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24th October, 2007.