Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 206 (PAT)

Chhathoo Lal v. Union Of India

2001-03-05

S.N.JHA

body2001
Judgment 1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order contained in memo no. 192 dated 17.1.2001 of the Department of Industries, Government of Bihar, relieving the petitioner and others from their present post to enable them to submit their joining in the State of Jharkhand upon their allocation to that State. List of officers and the employees of the Industries Department allocated to the States of Bihar and Jharkhand is enclosed with the said order. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was holding the post of Routine Clerk on the date of such allocation he has been described as Peon. It is said that the officers and employees have to be adjusted on equivalent posts on post-to- post basis upon their allocation to the States of Bihar or Jharkhand, as the case may be, as the petitioner held the post of Routine Clerk he cannot be allotted the post of Peon. 2. From the documents brought to the Courts notice it appears that the petitioner was appointed the post of Peon in the scale of Rs. 155-190 as retrenched employee on 21.7.96. On 15.7.83 he was appointed on the post of Routine Clerk on ad hoc basis for a period of six months. On 25.1.84 the appointment was extended till further orders. Admittedly, he has been holding the post of Routine Clerk ever since. In the counter affidavit the respondents have taken the stand that the appointment on the post of Routine Clerk was only for a period of six months and though it was extended until further orders, the terms and conditions of the appointment remained the same. Since the substantive post held by the petitioner was that of a Peon cannot claim any right on the post of Routine Clerk. 3. In this writ petition this Court is not required to go into and make any declaration of the legal status of the petitioner vis-a-vis the post of Peon or Clerk. Whatever be the legal character of his status one thing is clear that upon his allocation to the State of Jharkhand he goes there lock, stock and barrel. In other words, whatever his status in the erstwhile State of Bihar was, he is entitled to carry it to the State of Jharkhand upon his allocation to the State. Whatever be the legal character of his status one thing is clear that upon his allocation to the State of Jharkhand he goes there lock, stock and barrel. In other words, whatever his status in the erstwhile State of Bihar was, he is entitled to carry it to the State of Jharkhand upon his allocation to the State. The question as to whether the petitioners appointment and continuance on the post of Routine Clerk for 17 years conferred upon him any right to hold the post, can be gone into by the concerned authorities of the State of Jharkhand. Since admittedly he held the post of Routine Clerk, even though not on substantive post, the same cannot deprive him of his post and privilege until the same is determined in accordance with law by the authorities of that State. In this view of the matter, without interferring with his allocation to the State of Jharkhand, this Court would clarify that he would be deemed to be allocated on the post of Routine Clerk on the same terms and conditions which he was enjoying in the undivided State of Bihar prior to his allocation. 4. With this modification in the impugned order, this writ petition is disposed of.