The disciplinary authority is required to finish the investigation proceedings and the appointing authority is directed to investigate whether Peon services could be drafted to Corporation and if it is not legal, the appropriate order should be issued and conveyed is upheld by the High Court of Patna through the learned bench led by HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI in the case of Virendra Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1750 of 2021)
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has asked for the issuance of a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the petitioner’s salary for the month of February 2020 up to the present because the petitioner has been working continuously as a Peon in the office of the Superintending Engineer, PHED, and for a direction to the respondents to issue a copy of the office order by which the petitioner’s service has been transferred from his current place of posting (office of the Superintending Engineer, PHED to BUIDCO headquarters at Rajapur Pull, Patna).
The petitioner has requested that the respondent’s office send a relieving letter to the petitioner so that the petitioner can be released and join at the transfer location. During the pendency of the present case, the petitioner’s fundamental remedy has been set right in providing arrears of salary for which the present petition is filed, and the petitioner has filed an Interlocutory Application requesting certain further remedies.
The petitioner’s learned counsel stated that the petitioner was removed from the parent department and was asked to work for the Bihar Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (the “Corporation”), and that the deputation to the Corporation was not challenged. The petitioner is not entitled to redress as addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner until the deputation order is challenged.
Considering the facts and circumstances, the petition is dismissed, with the petitioner reserved the right to claim the difference in salary if he is found not guilty in the disciplinary processes. If he is found guilty, the authority is therefore directed to regulate the period in line with the law within three months of the conclusion of the investigation.
The disciplinary authority is hereby required to finish the investigation proceedings and the appointing authority who deputed the petitioner’s service to Corporation is hereby directed to investigate whether Peon services could be drafted to Corporation and if it is not legal, the appropriate order will be issued and conveyed to the petitioner.
Judgement reviewed by – Pooja Lakshmi