RAM PRAVESH PASWAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was working as 'Statistician in the office of R.C.H, Dhanbad, he was allocated to cadre of Bihar. Thereupon, the petitioner made representation for allocating him to the State of Jharkhand on mutual basis, as one Kailash Nath Jha was intending to have allocation to State of Bihar but when no order was passed, the petitioner preferred a writ application bearing W.P.(S) No.6579 of 2007 before this Court which was disposed of directing the respondent to take decision in the matter. Thereafter the competent authority took decision whereby the petitioner was allocated to the State of Jharkhand by order dated 25.9.2008. However, it was submitted that in spite of the decision allocating the petitioner the State of Bihar, the petitioner never joined in the State of Bihar, rather went on discharging his duties in the same capacity in the office of R.C.H, Dhanbad, though it is said that the petitioner was relieved with effect from 7.12.2007 but that relieving order was not ever given effect to as the petitioner under the order of Civil Surgeon, Dhanbad went on discharging his duties until he was allocated State of Jharkhand and this fact gets established from the documents annexed with this writ application but the authority never paid salary to the petitioner with effect from November, 2007 till date and therefore, the petitioner has preferred this writ application praying therein to direct the concerned respondent to pay salary for the aforesaid period.

(3.) IN view of the conflicting stand taken on behalf of the parties, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Civil Surgeon -cum -Chief Medical Officer, Dhanbad, respondent no.5 relating to payment of salary for the aforesaid period which the petitioner has claimed to have worked with a copy of this order within a period of three weeks and the respondent no.5 on getting representation will be taking decision within a period of six weeks on the matter as to whether the petitioner is entitled or not to receive salary for the period as claimed hereinabove. If the Civil Surgeon does find that the petitioner is entitled to receive the same, it should be paid within four weeks.