LAWS(JHAR)-2009-12-169

JAMUNA PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On December 10, 2009
JAMUNA PRASAD SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 4.9.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5714 of 2003, by which the writ petition was dismissed and consequently, the claim of the petitioner/appellant herein, claiming salary for the period during which he was under suspension, was rejected. The principal ground on which the petitioner/appellant's writ petition was rejected was to the effect that the petitioner had filed a writ petition earlier bearing C.W.J.C. No. 213/1998(R) wherein he had challenged the order of his dismissal from service. The petitioner/ appellant had also claimed for consequential benefits on which it was observed by the learned Single Judge that since the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation during pendency of the writ petition, the retiral benefits of the petitioner should be calculated by giving 50% of salary for the period i.e. from the date of dismissal up to the age of superannuation. The petitioner in the said writ petition had not taken any plea in regard to the salary for the period during which he was under suspension. The learned Single Judge, therefore, was of the view that when the petitioner/appellant had already raised the plea of consequential benefits in the earlier writ petition and no question had been raised by the petitioner in regard to the salary for the period of suspension, the said plea could not have been allowed to be raised by a fresh writ petition.

(2.) WHILE we concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that successive writ petitions in regard to the claim of arrears of salary could not have been allowed to be raised, the fact also remains that the petitioner in his earlier writ petition, where he had challenged the order of dismissal, had, in fact, taken the plea that the salary for the period of suspension should have been paid to him, but the same was not allowed and yet the petitioner did not prefer any appeal against the same, He, however, filed a fresh writ petition, The appellant, therefore, although had preferred an appeal, no order was passed in his favour regarding the arrears of salary for the period of suspension. The petitioner, thereafter, did not assail this order by filing any appeal before the Supreme Court. Thus, the order passed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. stood confirmed.