Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 553 (PAT)

Tirloki Nath Singh v. State Of Bihar

2005-06-22

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2005
Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents, particularly respondent no. 2 to post the petitioner to a suitable post, commensurate with his rank and status. Further prayer of the petitioner is for payment of salary from August, 2002 to 23.12.2002 by respondent no. 3 and from 24.12.2000 and current salary by respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner, who was an employee of the State Government, was sent on deputation to the Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board. By order dated 30th of March, 2002, the Board returned the service of the petitioner to the State Government in the Department of Agriculture, from where he was deputed to the Board. 3. Petitioner challenged the order of repatriation by filing CWJC No. 4268 of 2002 (Tirloki Nath Singh V/s. State of Bihar) before this Court. This Court by order dated 25th of July, 2002 dismissed the writ application. See [ 2002(4) PLJR 256 ]. Petitioner assailed the aforesaid order in LPA No. 866 of 2002 (Tirloki Nath Singh V/s. State of Bihar and Others) and a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 9.8.2002 dismissed the appeal. Petitioner challenged the said order by filing SLP (Civil) No. 23553 of 2002 before Supreme Court, which has been dismissed by order dated 6.1.2003. 4. Petitioner was ultimately relieved from the office of the Board on 23.1.2003 and he submitted his joining on 24.1.2003 in the Agriculture Department. It is the grievance of the petitioner that till date he has not been given any place of posting commensurate with his rank and status. His further grievance is that he has not been paid his salary from August, 2002 till 23.12.2002 by the Board and thereafter by the State Government. 5. Two counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2, the Agriculture Production Commissioner in which it has asserted the right of the State Government to depute a person in the Board. However, the petitioners assertion that he joined on 24.1.2003 in the Agriculture Department, has not been denied. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2, the Agriculture Production Commissioner in which it has asserted the right of the State Government to depute a person in the Board. However, the petitioners assertion that he joined on 24.1.2003 in the Agriculture Department, has not been denied. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 3, the Board has asserted its right to repatriate a person to the parent department, who has come on deputation in the Board. 7. Respondent No. 3 in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit has, however, stated that salary for the period for which the petitioner has worked in the Board shall be paid as soon as he submits the bill. 8. Mr. P.K. Sahi appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner having failed in getting the order of repatriation quashed, he had no option than to join the parent department. He points out that accordingly, the petitioner joined on 24.1.2003 in the Agriculture Department. He submits that the order of repatriation of the petitioner having been found valid by this Court, which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, respondent, State Government has a legal obligation to post the petitioner and to give a place of posting to the petitioner commensurate with his rank and status as also the salary for the period subsequent to joining in the Department. 9. JC to SC 6, however, contends that the State Government has a right to depute a person to the Board and, hence, it has no obligation to give a place of posting to the petitioner. 10. Having appreciated the rival submission, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Sahi. Petitioners repatriation to the State Government has been found valid by this Court. Undisputedly, petitioner was sent on deputation to the Marketing Board, while working in the Agriculture Department. After his repatriation, State Government is obliged to give him a place of posting and pay him the salary. 11. Petitioner has submitted his joining in the Agriculture Department on 24.1.2003. Let the State Government give the petitioner a place of posting within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In case, petitioner is not given a place of posting still he shall be entitled for the salary from 24.1.2003 and the current salary, from the State Government. 12. Let the State Government give the petitioner a place of posting within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In case, petitioner is not given a place of posting still he shall be entitled for the salary from 24.1.2003 and the current salary, from the State Government. 12. As regards the period for which the petitioner had worked in the Board, he shall submit the bill within two weeks and as undertaken, the Board shall make payment of salary of the said period within six weeks from the date of the submitting of the bill. 13. Application stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.