Letters Patent Appeal No. 1121 of 2012 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7223 of 2009. Case: The State of Bihar and Ors. Vs Prabhakar Kumar Sharma. High Court of Patna (India)
| Case Number | Letters Patent Appeal No. 1121 of 2012 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7223 of 2009 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ujjwal Kumar Sinha, AC to AAG and For Respondents: Ansul, Archit Rajpal and Anuj Kr., Advocates |
| Judges | Navaniti Prasad Singh and Nilu Agrawal, JJ. |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | November 05, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Patna (India) |
Judgment:
Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.
-
IA No. 7358 of 2015 has been filed by the sole respondent for vacation of stay which was granted while admitting the intra-Court appeal.
-
Having heard the learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the respondent, we are of the view that it is better to dispose of this appeal on merit rather than hearing on matter of stay. We had, accordingly, adjourned this matter to enable the learned counsels to argue the matter on merits for its final disposal at this stage itself. Having heard the learned counsels, matter is being finally disposed of at this stage itself.
-
The writ petitioner, who is the respondent herein, had claimed salary which was, according to him, due and payable to him virtually from 1981 to 1997 and that too on B.Sc. trained scale. The facts which led to such a claim are also not in dispute. The writ petitioner/appellant was permanently appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year, 1973. In 1981, he gave an application of his illness and allegedly vanished. It is not in dispute that thereafter in 1982, he tried to rejoin the school. On his application itself, the Headmaster informed him that, due to his long unauthorized absence, his services had been terminated. Thereafter, the writ petitioner/appellant kept making representations that there were no proceedings, no notice and the termination was bad. He should be allowed to join. The last of such representations is of the year, 1984. Thereafter, in 1990, upon his representations filed, the matter was considered afresh and the authorities including the Regional Deputy Director of Education (For brevity, the RDD) was of the view that the termination was void and unenforceable inasmuch as neither any proceeding was initiated nor any notice was ever issued to the writ petitioner/appellant in this regard. Ultimately, the District Collector was of the view that the order of termination of service be withdrawn but the writ petitioner should be made to join service afresh. The matter was well considered by the RDD who correctly took the view that the order of termination had to be recalled and the writ petitioner/appellant be directed to join his service as an employee not terminated. It could not be a fresh joining. Accordingly, it is in 1997 that writ petitioner/appellant was ultimately allowed to join though inspite of the orders, it took over 14 months thereafter to issue an order posting him. The writ petitioner then having...
To continue reading
Request your trial