Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 397 (JHR)

Pradeep Kumar Jha v. State Of Jharkhand

2004-04-13

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2004
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The order as contained in Annexure-9 dated 09.02.2002 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna by which the representation of the petitioner for his promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police was rejected is impugned in this writ application. 3. The petitioner had earlier moved this Court by filing CWJC No. 502 of 2001 for direction to the respondents to consider his case for promotion on the ground that the juniors have already been promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police but his case was not considered. The said writ petition was disposed of, by order dated 06.02.2001, with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation filed by the petitioner and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 4. Pursuant thereto Annexure-9 has been passed by the DIG of Police, Bihar. 5. It is submitted that there is no dispute that the petitioner is posted in the State of Jharkhand and therefore in view of the judgment passed in the case of State of Bihar v. Arvind Vijay Billing and Anr., reported in 2002 (1) JCR 401 (Jhr) : 2002 (1) JLJR 697 , the respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Bihar, Patna had no jurisdiction to reject the representation of the petitioner by order dated 09.02.2002, after coming into force of Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000. As a matter of fact, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna, should have referred the matter alongwith the relevant records to the State of Jharkhand to pass an appropriate order on the representation filed by the petitioner pursuant to the order of this Court. 6. It is stated by the learned counsel for the State of Bihar that all the records relating to the petitioner, has already been sent to the State of Jharkhand on 28th August, 2003. 7. I find that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. 8. 6. It is stated by the learned counsel for the State of Bihar that all the records relating to the petitioner, has already been sent to the State of Jharkhand on 28th August, 2003. 7. I find that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. 8. In the case of State of Bihar v. Arvind Vijay Bilung, (supra) the Division Bench of this Court has held as follows :-- "If as on the appointed day, a person was serving in and posted at a place which formed part of the territory of the State of Jharkhand and if with respect to such a person cause of action had occurred, say in the year 1998 or 1999, in a place which, as on the appointed day, formed part of the State of Bihar, the State of Jharkhand alone shall be: the competent authority and only such competent authority can pass order with respect to such a person. The State of Bihar with respect to such a person would have no jurisdiction to initiate action or pass an order." 12. In such a situation and in such a background, where the State is carved out of an existing State, the cooperation between the two States becomes meaningful, If, therefore, the State of Bihar has, in its possession, any material against a Government servant who, by virtue of Section 74 of the Act, is now in the service of the State of Jharkhand and if the State of Bihar thinks that such material warrants initiation of an action against such a person, it is open to the State of Bihar to forward such material to the State of Jharkhand for such action as it considered appropriate by the State of Jharkhand. Let it be very clearly understood that only role of the erstwhile State in such a situation is merely to pass on the information or the relevant material to the State of Jharkhand and leaving the rest for the State of Jharkhand to do. Let it be very clearly understood that only role of the erstwhile State in such a situation is merely to pass on the information or the relevant material to the State of Jharkhand and leaving the rest for the State of Jharkhand to do. Similar would be the case for the State of Jharkhand if an employee is in a place in Bihar and if the State of Jharkhand has any material in its possession which may be required to be forwarded to the State of Bihar for appropriate action against such an employee." In that view of the matter the order as contained in Annexure-9 dated 09.02.2002 cannot be sustained, accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. The State of Jharkhand is directed to pass a fresh order on the representation filed by the petitioner, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, pursuant to the order of this Court passed in CWJC No, 502 of 2001 (Annexure-7) in accordance with law. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merit of the claim of the petitioner. 10. This application is thus allowed with the above observation and direction.