Jharkhand High Court
Lalit Mohan Roy vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 10 August, 2001
Author: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
Bench: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
1. The petitioner was in the services of the State, being aggrieved against the order dated 2nd December, 2000 contained in Memo No. 2820, has preferred this writ petition.
2. By the order dated 2nd December, 2000 the appointment of petitioner made in the year 1967 has been cancelled after about 33 years of service.
3. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Statistical Supervisor on temporary basis by an order contained in Memo No. 645 dated 1st February, 1967 issued by Director. Directorate of Statistical and Evaluation. Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. During the service period he was transferred from one place to other and was lastly posted in the office of District Statistical Officer, Dumka.
4. According to petitioner, he continued in the services of the State without any break and was to superannuate from service in the midst of 2001. About six months prior to his retirement the Director, Statistics and Evaluation Directorate. Planning Department. Government of Bihar issued impugned Memo No. 2820 dated 2nd December, 2000 and cancelled his appointment.
5. It was alleged that the order of appointment was cancelled not only six months prior to the retirement of the petitioner but also without notice to him by an authority who had no jurisdiction to cancell appointment, after re-organisation of the State.
6. The case was taken up on 3rd May, 2001 and respondents were allowed six weeks time to file counter affidavit. On 20th July, 2001 the Court passed the following orders :--
"This case has been listed on the request of the counsel for the petitioner as was made before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
It was submitted that the petitioner was to superannuate from service in normal course on 31st July, 2001 but about seven months prior to such retirement, the impugned order dated 2nd December, 2000 was issued terminating his services, cancelling the appointment with immediate effect as was initially made in the year 1967.
In the present case two questions arise as to whether after re-organisation of State since 15th November, 2000, the Director. Planning Department, Government of Bihar has jurisdiction to terminate the services/cancel the appointment of employees posted within the jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand whether even on such cancellation, there being no bar in terms of Rule 101 of the Bihar Pension Rules, the employee is entitled the total retiral benefits having served the State for about 33 years.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I recall the earlier order dated 3rd May, 2001 so far as the listing of case for admission is concerned.
Let the case be listed under the heading 'for admission' on 10th August, 2001 within five cases."
7. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of State of Bihar or State of Jharkhand. As the petitioner has already crossed 58 years of age, the matter was taken up for final disposal.
8. From the impugned order it will be evident that the Director, Directorate of Statistics and Evaluation, Planning Department, Government of Bihar, had knowledge that the petitioner was posted in the District of Dumka. The said District of Dumka after re-organisation of the State falls within the State of Jharkhand since 15th November, 2000,
9. The question relating to power and jurisdiction of the Director, Planning Department, Government of Bihar to terminate/ cancell the appointment of an employee posted within the jurisdiction of the State of Bihar was formulated vide order dated 20th July, 2001.
10. Similar question fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Arbind Vijay Billing, CWJC No. 2202 of 2001 (See 2001 (3) JCR 155) and analogous cases. In the said case this Court, fide judgment dated 7th August, 2001, answered the question, in negative, and held that the State of Bihar or appropriate authority of the State of Bihar has no jurisdiction to take disciplinary action Or other penal action in respect to a personal holding post and office in the State of Jharkhand, even though no notification allotting cadre/post has been issued to the Central Government under Section 72(1) or (2) of the Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000.
11. In view of decision in the case of Arbind Vjjay Bifung (supra) the order issued by the Director, Directorate of Statistics and Evaluation. Planning Department, Government of Bihar, can not be upheld in respect to petitioner who was posted at Dumka.
12. This apart, the impugned order dated 2nd December, 2000 having issued without notice and hearing the petitioner, in violation of principle of natural justice and as the petitioner was to superannuate from service after few months, the said order can not be upheld. Accordingly, order dated 2nd December. 2000 is set aside. The petitioner deemed to have continued in the service till the date of superannuation (58 years of age) is entitled for consequential benefits, including arrears of salary of the intervening period.
13. The petitioner may now have the competent authority for releasing of the arrears of salary and retiral benefits having superannuated from service under the law. The benefits be paid within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
14. The writ petition is allowed.
15. Writ petition allowed.