Patna High Court - Orders
Avinash Vatsayan vs The State Of Bihar & Ors. on 17 August, 2016
Author: Navaniti Prasad Singh
Bench: Navaniti Prasad Singh, Nilu Agrawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No 35 of 2011
======================================================
Avinash Vatsayan
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr Ram Shankar Das, Advocate
For State of Bihar : Mr Saroj Kumar Sharma, AC to AAG 3
For BISCOMAUN : Mr Ishwari Singh, Advocate
For State of Jharkhand : Mr Satyavrat Verma, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH
And
HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT NILU AGRAWAL
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH)
11 17-08-2016The petitioner was originally an employee of Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Union Limited. It appears that, as with most State Organizations, it expanded beyond its manageable bridge. It became sick. A decision was taken by State Government to depute employees of various grades of BISCOMAUN to various Departments. Petitioner was, accordingly, moved out. The petitioner, accordingly, in the year 1994, was sent to the Government Polytechnic College at Ranchi. Subsequently, Government took a decision to repatriate them back to the parent Department. This was resisted by the petitioner and his like. They filed writ petitions. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition but the Division Bench of this Court Patna High Court MJC No.35 of 2011 (11) dt.17-08-2016 2/3 took a view that as they had been moved from BISCOMAUN, ostensibly for their absorption elsewhere, they could not be repatriated rather they were to be permanently absorbed in the Department to which they had been deputed. There was an appeal against this to the Apex Court but the SLP was dismissed. Similar litigations continued in the State of Jharkhand where the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench ruled against the employees. The matter then reached the Apex Court and recently the Apex Court, vide judgment and order dated 03rd of February, 2015 in Civil Appeal No 1442 of 2015 as well as Civil Appeal No 1443 of 2015, dismissed the appeals of the individuals holding that the order of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court was not correct and, accordingly, directed the petitioner to go and join the parent Department. Thereafter, the individuals filed review applications before the Apex Court which was also dismissed. Now when this petitioner goes, and, pursuant to directions of the Apex Court, gives his joining before the BISCOMAUN, he is told that in 2012 itself, BISCOMAUN had dismissed him. What we find surprising is that it was way back in 1994 that the petitioner was deputed to the Government Polytechnic College at Ranchi. When he was being relieved from there, the litigation started and it is only ultimately in the Supreme Court that the litigation has Patna High Court MJC No.35 of 2011 (11) dt.17-08-2016 3/3 concluded and on the 03rd of February 2015, the Apex Court directed the petitioner to go and join in the parent Department. It is not in dispute that even the dismissal order was passed ex parte in the year, 2012 by BISCOMAUN and the only ground which is being mentioned by the learned counsel was his non-joining, pursuant to repatriation order which, already noticed, was under
challenge.
Thus, clearly BISCOMAUN would be in contempt if joining of the petitioner is not accepted. The Supreme Court's direction is dated 03rd of February, 2015 and that has to be obeyed. We would, accordingly, expect BISCOMAUN to recall its decisions in obedience to the orders of the Apex Court and accept the joining of the petitioner.
To show compliance, put up this case on 31st of August, 2016 under the same heading retaining its position.
(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)
M.E.H./- (Nilu Agrawal, J)
U