STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. DAMODAR HOTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the order dated 9.7.2013 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1961 of 2012, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner-1st respondent was allowed and the impugned order dated 29.12.2011 was quashed. Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner-1st respondent was appointed on 21.8.1980 in the Government Aided Minority School by the Managing Committee by letter dated 15.8.1980 and the appointment was approved by the Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna by letter No. 1229 dated 29.6.1982. By letter No. 1348 dated 20.4.2000, 1st respondent's 3rd Pay Revision was recommended by the District Superintendent of Education (in short 'D.S.E.'), Gumla. By letter No. 999 dated 28.4.2004 issued by the Director, Primary Education, Jharkhand, the D.S.E., Gumla, was asked to verify the provisional verification statement of sanctioned and working and non-teaching units in the Non-Government Aided Primary Schools from the records available at his office. The D.S.E., Gumla, by letter dated 18.11.2005, issued a statement showing sanctioned posts in different schools. The case of the 1st respondent is that the sanctioned posts of the 3rd respondent School, R.C. Middle School, Kayamba, was shown as seven and the 1st respondent is entitled to revision of his pay-scale. The District Accounts Officer, Gumla, approved the proposal for revision of 5th and 6th pay-revisions. The order was, thereafter, to be issued but the salary payable to the 1st respondent has been withheld since September, 2010. On 25.10.2011, 1st respondent made representation to release his salary. The D.S.E., Gumla, issued the impugned order under Memo No. 2189 dated 29.12.2011 challenging the legality of the sanctioned posts meant for the school. Thereafter, 1st respondent made several representations for release of his salary; but nothing has been done. The 1st respondent, thereafter, filed W.P. (S) No. 1961 of 2012 challenging the order passed by the D.S.E., Gumla as contained in Memo No. 2189 dated 29.12.2011, whereby it was observed that there are only three sanctioned posts of Teachers in the School and the 1st respondent was not working against those three posts and is not entitled to get salary.

(2.) Learned Single Judge held that the impugned order dated 29.12.2011 has been issued without giving any notice and any opportunity of representation or hearing. Learned Single Judge further held that by the impugned order the 1st respondent's pay has been stopped and the said order is punitive and visiting the 1st respondent with civil consequences and the order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and directed the appellants to release 1st respondent's arrears of salary within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of that order. Being aggrieved by the impugned order allowing the writ petition, the State of Jharkhand has filed this Letters Patent Appeal.

(3.) We have heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-State, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and also the counsel appearing for the school-3rd Respondent.