2026:JHHC:4295 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 569 of 2021 ------ Intakhabur Rahman, son of Habibur Rahman, resident of Ward No. 6, Village, P.O and P.S.- Bakhtiyarpur, District- Bakhtiyarpur, Patna, Bihar- 803212, at present working as Urdu Translator, Bishunpur Block, P.O and P.S. Bishunpur, District- Daltonganj, Jharkhand. .. Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, at Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. The Joint Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, at Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 4. The Deputy Director, Rajbhasa, South Chhotanagpur Division, P.O and P.S. Doranda, Ranchi. 5. The Block Development Officer, Bishrampur Block, P.O and P.S. Bishrampur, District- Palamau. ...Respondent(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the petitioner(s): Mr. A. Allam, Sr. Advocate. M/s Sushmita Kumari, Asfia Sultana and and Faisal Allam, Advocates. For the State: AC to Sr. SC-III ------- 13/16.02.2026: Heard the parties. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for disbursement of his salary from March 2015 to till date. The petitioner has also prayed for grant of 1st and 2nd ACP/MACP, which he is entitled to. 3. After going through the records, I find that the petitioner was appointed as Urdu translator on 25.9.1995 by the undivided State of Bihar. The petitioner joined on 28.9.1995 and his services were confirmed. Thereafter, service of the petitioner was allocated in the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner was transferred from one Block to another and ultimately, he was transferred to Bishrampur Block at Palamau. The petitioner's salary was stopped on the allegation that the attitude of the petitioner was indifferent towards the work, which was allotted to him and he was not performing the assigned work. Further, a ground was taken that in the district- Deoghar while the petitioner was posted, he also behaved in similar manner. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, the salary of the petitioner has been stopped. 4. In the counter affidavit, the State has taken a plea that since the petitioner's attitude was indifferent towards the work, his salary has been stopped. The behaviour of the petitioner was same in the district of Plamau Page No.-1 2026:JHHC:4295 and also in the district of Deoghar while the petitioner was posted. 5. After hearing the parties and from the counter affidavit, I find that the main ground for stopping the salary of the petitioner is that he was not performing his duty as per the direction of the respondents and his attitude was indifferent towards the work, which was assigned to him. If that be the reason, the petitioner should have been proceeded against. There is nothing on record to show that at any point of time in Palamau or in Deoghar, the petitioner was ever proceeded against or any show cause was notice was issued to the petitioner. The respondent admits that because of the attitude of the petitioner, his salary has been stopped. Thus, as per the respondents, since the petitioner was not working as per the direction of the higher authority, his salary has been stopped. 6. The stoppage of salary amounts to punishment. No punishment can be inflicted against any employee without following the due process of law. Admittedly, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor the petitioner was proceeded against departmentally. When the petitioner was not departmentally proceeded against, his salary could not have been stopped by way of punishment. 6. Thus, the action of the respondents in not paying the salary of the petitioner on the alleged ground that the petitioner was indifferent towards his work, cannot be sustained. 7. Thus, I direct the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner for the period he has attended his office. The payment of the petitioner should be made within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. So far as ACP/MACP is concerned, the respondents will consider the case of the petitioner and will pass an appropriate order as per law and if it is found that the petitioner is entitled to get the said benefit, the same should be extended to him within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order also. 9. With the aforesaid order and direction, this petition stands disposed of. 10. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of. 16th February, 2026 (ANANDA SEN, J.) Anu-Cp2. Uploaded on 18.2.2026 Page No.-2