IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.237 of 2001 RAKESH KUMAR SINGH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 08.05.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. The claim in the writ application is for a mandamus directing the respondents to pay salary and admissible allowances from the date of joining. In the year 1997 a competitive examination was held by the Bihar Public Service Commission which recommended 177 candidates for appointment as Assistant Engineer (Civil) to the Road Construction Department. At this time Road Construction Department was acting as the nodal department. Out of these 177 candidates 116 were appointed in the Road Construction Department by notification dated 7.5.1997.The remaining 61 Assistant Engineers were appointed in the Public Health Engineering Department by notification dated 21.5.1997. The petitioners were amongst the 116 candidates appointed in the Road Construction Department. Suffice it to say that the petitioners joined on different dates in May 1997 in pursuance of the departmental notification dated 7.5.1997. It is submitted that after they gave their joining no work was assigned to them and they were kept waiting for posting when on 27.6.1997 their services were handed over to the Building Construction Department. Even in the Building Construction Department no work was assigned to them till March 1998. However for the period in between June 1997 to March 1998 when the petitioners were kept waiting for 2 work in the Building Construction Department they have in fact been paid their salaries. The controversy now remains confined to their claim for salary in between May 1997 and June 1997 when they were kept waiting for posting in the Road Construction Department. It is further submitted that in similar circumstances earlier the Road Construction Department ordered payment of salary from the date of taking over of charge of the appointees irrespective of the date of appointment. On reconsideration of the matter by an order dated 24.4.1992 appended at Annexure 9 to the writ application the Road Construction Department itself modified its earlier order for payment of wages from the date of assuming charge and directed that wages was to be paid from the date of joining. The submission therefore is that it was for the petitioner to join in time and the allotment of work was in the domain of the respondents. If the respondents delayed in allotting work to the petitioners after their joining the petitioners cannot be faulted with. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Road Construction Department. The only counter affidavit is on behalf of the Building Construction Department. It has already been noticed above that the petitioners have been paid their salary by the Building Construction Department from the date of their joining in June 1997 in the said department notwithstanding allotment of work to them by the Building Construction Department in March 1998. Curiously contrary to the order dated 24.4.1992 at Annexure 9 to the writ application while dealing with Para 19 of the writ application the respondents in their counter affidavit have blindly chosen to deny Annexure 9 itself by saying that salary had been paid from the date of assumption of charge 3 when that is exactly what Annexure 9 dated 24.4.1`992 annuls and orders payment from the date of joining. Quite obviously the deponent did not even bother or have the responsibility to go through the writ application to which he was filing counter affidavit. Once the petitioners were selected for appointment, notifications of their appointment was issued, they became employees of the department. Naturally they were precluded from applying for other appointment till they resigned. In effect, the respondents want to compel the petitioners to remain on their rolls debarring them from applying for fresh appointment and yet refuse to pay salary to them till such time that they in their wisdom decided to allot work. The actions are clearly contrary to their service conditions as also evident from the relevant extract of the PWD Code appended by the petitioners at Annexure 7, Rule 22 of which reads as follows:- “22. Date from which pay and service of increments will commence- Pay and service for increments shall commence from the date of joining the service. The period of probation will count for increments, but if it is extended on account of failure to give satisfaction no increments shall be drawn during the extended period of probation. It is, therefore, very apparent that wages shall be paid from the date of joining. The issue of delay in disposal of matters by Courts is now a matter of national concern. A primary reason for the same is the ever- increasing dockets of the Courts. The present is perhaps a classic example as to how the dockets of the Courts are burdened by luxury 4 litigation indulged in by the State. The Court would have normally expected that once materials by way of documentary evidence had been brought on record in the writ petition, if the State had a valid defence to the same it could have taken the same in the counter affidavit when the Court would have adjudicated the matter. But, when the State itself thinks that it has no defence and resorts to frivolity because the litigation is being fought at the tax payers expense, the inevitable result is burdening the Court with unwanted litigation. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, which is surely not an exception, this Court considers it proper to direct that the petitioners shall be entitled to compounded interest @ 10 % per annum from the date that wages was denied to them till the date that it is paid. Let such payment be made to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. This Court also considers it proper to impose cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the respondents payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Patna, to be deposited within one month and proof of deposit filed within the same period. Liberty is given to the respondents to fix responsibility in what circumstances the litigation came to be conducted in such a casual and irresponsible manner without even perusing materials on record in the writ petition and recover the amount of interest and cost from the salary of the erring officials. The writ application stands allowed with the directions indicated above. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.) 5