Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"Successor State" has been defined in Section 2(j) of the Act which reads thus :
"Successor State in relation to the existing State of Bihar, means the State of Bihar or Jharkhand."

5. Apparently, one may be tempted to say that there, perhaps is a conflict between the explicit, express and specific provisions contained in Section 74 and Sub-section (1) of Section 72 of the Act. This is an illusion. By adopting the process of harmonious construction and by invoking the doctrine of necessity, we shall proceed to interpret the aforesaid two sections of the Act in such a manner as to re-concile the Legislative intent in such a manner as to meaningfully and purposefully give a constructive interpretation, so that the real intention of the Legislature is culled out from a harmonious reading of these two Sections. We are saying so because looked at from a very practical point of view, on and from the appointed day, the State of Jharkhand having come into being, such Government servants (other than those covered by Section 71 of the Act) who, on the appointed day, were actually and physically posted at and serving in the territories either forming part of the successor State of Jharkhand or the successor State of Bihar, should continue to function in, and under such successor States and on that reckoning, therefore, the successor State should be, undoubtedly, the competent disciplinary authority in respect of such employees. To elucidate and elaborate, the real practical and pragmatic aspect is that on the appointed day, the employees (or the Government servants) who have been actually posted in the territories constituting the State of Jharkhand were not expected to migrate into the territory constituting the successor State of Bihar. By looking to, properly understanding and closely appreciating the scheme of the Act, specially the provisions contained in Part-VIII, any one can discover the legislative intent very explicitly and clearly and that is that the Legislature intended that, as on the appointed day, the employees (or the Government servants) who were posted in and performing their duties in a particular area which at that time formed part of either the State of Jharkhand, or the State of Bihar would continue to remain there and once that contingency stood covered, the Legislature went on the provide that, on and from the appointed day with respect to such employees (or such Government servants), the competent authority shall be the State or its functionaries in whose territories the employees would be functioning and posted as on that day. The paramount consideration as therefore is manifestly apparent in the scheme of the Act is the physical and actual posting of the employee as on the appointed day. This paramount consideration emanates clearly, and is patently and latently discernible from a bare reading of Section 74 of the Act which lays down that every person who, before the appointed day was holding any post or discharging duties on any such post in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Bihar in any area which as on that day, fell within the territories of any 'successor State' shall continue to hold the same post or office in that successor State and shall therefore be deemed, on and from that day, to have been duly appointed to the post or office by the Government or, any other appropriate authority of that 'successor State'. The proviso to Section 74 being of equal importance also lays down that such competent authority, on and from the appointed day, would be well within its rights and within the parameters of its jurisdiction to pass, in relation to such person, any order affecting the continuance of such person on such post or office. Viewed thus, if one looks to the language employed in Section 72(2) of the Act, one finds that all that Section 72 says is that every person, who immediately before the appointed day had been serving in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Bihar would, on and from that day, provisionally continue to serve in connection with the affairs of the State of Bihar, unless he was required by a general or special order of the Central Government to serve provisionally in connection with the affairs of the State of Jharkhand.