BAHADUR DANGWAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application petitioners have prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to make payment of their salary with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from September, 1997 till date and also for a direction to the respondents for revival of the industrial unit for the livelihood of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners now confines the prayer only to the claim for payment of salary to the petitioners for the period as aforesaid.

(2.) IT is explained by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were employed under respondent no. 3, the Managing Director, Bihar State Tanin Extract Limited which is under the administrative control of the Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Bihar. The employees of the Bihar State Tanin Extract Limited also used to be sent on deputation to various other departments of the State of Bihar. On account of financial constraints and loss in business, the company did not pay salary to the petitioners 'since 1997 although the petitioners continued in employment under the Government. Since their salary was not paid, the petitioners had earlier filed a writ petition being CWJC No. 4071 of 2000 before this Court wherein by order dated 12.11.2002 (Annexure -1 to this writ petition) while disposing of the writ petition, the Court directed the petitioners to file their individual representations to the respondent no. 2 herein i.e. the Managing Director of the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation, Patna, and the said respondent was also directed to dispose of the representations of the petitioners by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law. A corresponding direction was also issued to the Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment; Government of Jharkhand Ranchi, to dispose of the representations of the petitioners within six weeks by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law. The petitioners accordingly filed their individual representations, but they did not receive any response. Thereafter the present application has been filed with similar prayer for direction to the respondents to pay the dues to the petitioners for the period claimed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State of Bihar submits that the present writ application is misconceived and not maintainable in view of the fact that the claim raised by the petitioners is entirely and exclusively directed against the State of Bihar and in this view of the matter, the claim should have been filed before the appropriate authority within that State and not under the State of Jharkhand.