ARUN KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that despite the valid grant of study leave salary for the period running from 2nd February, 2002 to 1st July, 2003 has not been paid. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that neither any stipend nor other benefits nor salary payable under the relevant rules, has been paid to the petitioner and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred for getting salary in accordance with law for the period running from 2nd February, 2002 to 1st July, 2003.

(2.) IT is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was serving as Ayurvedic Medical Officer in State Dispensary, Chaibasa, Singhbhum (West). He had applied for study leave, which was validly granted for the aforesaid period, but the salary for that study leave period, has not been paid. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that looking to the counter affidavit, filed by the respondents in reply, especially paragraph 7 thereof, petitioner is entitled for salary as stated in Rule 217 of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) Service Code, 2001 enacted under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner is entitled for the salary as stated therein. Even admitted salary under Rule 217 of the Code, 2001, is also not paid. Thus, arbitrarily, the concerned officer of the respondent -State has withhold the salary, which is even admitted in the counter affidavit, filed by the concerned respondent and, therefore, payable amount under Rule 217 of the Code, 2001, ought to be paid with immediate effect and with necessary interest. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it has been brought to the kind notice of respondents by the interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 3123 of 2006 that two other similarly situated candidates payment of salary has been made for the study leave period.

(3.) IT is also submitted by the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5 that the petitioner is not entitled for the payment of the regular salary during the period for which study leave was granted, therefore, the tall claim of the petitioner for getting full salary is dehors the rules of the Code, 2001, especially under Rule 217 thereof. Nonetheless, he is entitled for salary for study leave period as per the formula given under Rule 217 of the Code, 2001 enacted under the proviso of 309 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5 that as per Rule 217 of the Code, 2001, petitioner is entitled for half average pay and as per Rule 11 of the Code, 2001, average pay means average monthly pay earned during the 12 complete months, immediately preceding the month in which the petitioner was given study leave salary. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for the full salary during the study leave period.