Jharkhand High Court
Ram Swarath Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 27 September, 2001
Author: M.Y. Eqbal
Bench: M.Y. Eqbal
ORDER
The Court
1. Petitioner has questioned the validity of the order dated 13.2.2001 issued under the signature of the Secretary. Public Works (Road & Building) & Transport. Government of Jharkhand. whereby the service of the petitioner purported to have been sent back to the State of Bihar. The fact of the case lies in a narrow compass.
2. Petitioner was posted at Chirkunda in the District of Dhanbad as Enforcement Sub-Inspector. In discharge of his duty he seized so many vehicles which were plying without road permit and valid documents. It is stated that on the basis of letter written by Sri Inder Singh Namdhari. Speaker of Jharkhand Vidhansabha to the Transport Minister, a Wireless message was Issued on 20.1.2001 directing the petitioner to submit his joining in the office of the Transport Minister within 24 hours. The petitioner challenged the order of transfer by filing CWJC No. 390/2001. The writ application was heard on 25.1.2001 and this Court while refusing to interfere with the order of transfer directed the petitioner to file representation before the appropriation authority. The petitioner accordingly filed the representation. The respondents further issued impugned order whereby it was decided to sent back the services of the petitioner to the State of Bihar. Further, case of the petitioner is that after issuance of Wireless message an inquiry was made by the Deputy Inspector General regarding certain allegations made against the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police finally submitted report stating that petitioner had acted in the interest of the State and seized and hand-over to the police huge amount of fine which have been realised from the vehicle's owners who were plying the same on the road without valid documents. Petitioner has also made allegation against the Speaker of the Jharkhand Assembly.
3. The court by order dated 2.2.2001 requested the learned Advocate - General to assist the Court In this case since a question whether the State of Jharkhand is empowered under the Reorganisation Act to send back the services of any officer from the State of Jharkhand to the State of Bihar is involved. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State of Jharkhand stating inter alia that on the basis of allegation made against the petitioner he was transferred from Chirkunda and was directed to join in the head-quarter within 24 hours. The Secretary. Public Works and Transport Department later on discussed the matter with the Transport Minister of Jharkhand and finally it was decided to send back the services of the petitioner to the State of Bihar.
4. Admittedly on the appointed day when the State of Jharkhand came into existence, petitioner was working as Enforcement Officer in Chirkunda in the district of Dhanbad. On 20.1.2001 by Wireless message petitioner was directed to join in the office of Minister of Transport, Ranchi. The said transfer order was challenged by the petitioner but this Court refused to interfere with the order of transfer. However, by the impugned order dated 13.2.2001 the respondent-State of Jharkhand purported to send back the services of the petitioner to the State of Bihar. The question therefore arises whether the State of Jharkhand have jurisdiction and power to send back the services of any of the officer to the State of Bihar. Before deciding the question I would first refer Section 72 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act. 2000 (in short Act). Section 72 of the Act reads as under :
"Provision relating to Services in Bihar and Jharkhand.--(1) Every person who immediately before the appointed day is serving in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Bihar shall, on and from that day provisionally continue to serve in connection with the affairs of the State of Bihar unless he is required, by general or special order of the Central Government to serve provisionally in connection with the affairs of the State of Jharkhand :
Provided that no direction shall be issued under this section after the expiry of a period of one year from the appointed day.
(2) As soon as may be after the appointed day, the Central Government shall, by general or special order, determine the successor State to which every person referred to in Sub-section (1) shall be finally allotted for service and the date with effect from which such allotment shall take effect or be deemed to have taken effect.
(3) Every person who is finally allotted under the provisions of sub-section (2) to a successor State shall, if he is not already serving therein be made available for serving in the successor State from such date as may be agreed upon between the Governments concerned or in default of such agreement, as may be determined by the Central Government."
5. From bare reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that all such persons who before the appointed day were working as an employee of the State of Bihar shall provisionally continue to serve in the affairs of the State of Jharkhand. It is the Central Government who shall finally determine the successor State to which such officers shall continue to serve in that State. Section 74 of the Act makes provision for continuance of the officers on the same post. Section 74 reads as under :
"Provisions as to continuance of officers in same post.--Every person who, immediately before the appointed day is holding or discharging the duties of any post of office in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Bihar in any area which on that day falls within any of the successor States shall continue to hold the same post or office in that successor state, and shall be deemed, on and from that day, to have been duly appointed to the post or office by the Government of, or any other appropriate authority in, that successor State :
Provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a competent authority, on and from the appointed day, from passing in relation to such person any order affecting the continuance in such post or office."
6. There is no other provision under the Reorganisation Act, 2000 which empowers the newly created State of Jharkhand to send back the services of those officers who shall be deemed to continue in the State of Jharkhand till cadre division is finalised by the Central Government.
7. Mr. M.M. Banerjee. learned Advocate General has very fairly submitted that Section 74 of the Act does not empower the State of Jharkhand to send back the services of any officer to the State of Bihar. In my considered ' opinion also neither Section 72 nor Section 74 empowers the State of Jharkhand to send back the services of any of the officers posted in the State of" Jharkhand to the State of Bihar.
8. Por the reasons aforesaid, this writ application is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.2.2001 as contained in An-
nexure 7 to the writ application is quashed.
Respondents are directed to pass appropriate order for posting of the petitioner is accord ance with law.
9. Application allowed.