SURESH KUMAR VERMA Vs. HEALTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-State.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Jeep Driver in the year 1985. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner along with others were terminated on 18.10.1986. The said order was set aside by the then Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court, in C.W.J.C. No. 322 of 1986 (R), by order dated 25.8.1987, which has been brought on record as Annexure-3 to the writ application. There after the petitioner was reinstated in service and he was performing his duty. Subsequently, the order contained in memo No.257 dated 16.3.2005 was issued by the respondent No.4, Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Koderma, with regard to the appointment of the petitioner and other similarly situated candidates, stating inter alia that the Committee, which had looked into the appointment of the petitioner and other candidates, had found their appointments to be forged and accordingly, payment of salary was stopped and it was directed that no further work shall be taken from the petitioner and other similarly situated candidates. The said order has been brought on record as Annexure-6 to the writ application. The order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 1015 of 2006. It may be stated that in the meantime, the operation of order dated 16.3.2005 contained in Annexure-6 to the writ supplication was stayed and it was directed that those employees, who were actually working, shall be paid their salary. The said order was issued by respondent No. 4, Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Koderma, as contained in Memo No. 893 dated 3.8.2005, and has been brought on record as Annexure-8 to the writ application.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that this order was never served upon the petitioner, nor it was made known to the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner finds force from the fact that W.P.(S) No. 1015 of 2005, which was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.3.2005 as contained in Annexure-6, was disposed of by order dated 12.7.2006, and from perusal of the said order, it is apparent that the order dated 3.8.2005 as contained in Annexure-8 was not even brought to the knowledge of this Court and accordingly, this Court by order dated 12.7.2006 while disposing of the writ petition, had quashed the order dated 16.3.2005 (Annexure-6 to this writ application). Accordingly, the respondents were directed to pay the admitted salary of the petitioner for the period for which he had actually worked. As no payment had been made to the petitioner, the petitioner filed a contempt case, which was registered as Cont. Case (Civil) No.267 of 2007, but in the meantime, some payment was made to the petitioner and this Court by order dated 12.2.2009 dismissed the contempt case stating that there was observation that the salary shall be paid only for the period, the petitioner had actually worked.