Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2142 (JHR)

Md. Rahimuddin Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2017-12-12

S.N.PATHAK

body2017
JUDGMENT : S.N. PATHAK, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Since issues involved in both these writ petitions are similar, hence, they are being disposed of with a common order. 3. The petitioners in both the writ petitions have approached this Court with a common prayer for directing the respondents to allocate the services of the petitioners from the respective place of posting under the State of Jharkhand to the State of Bihar since pursuant to letter dated 30.07.2013 itself, the petitioners have given their option for cadre allocation in their native place in the State of Bihar. 4. The facts derived from the aforesaid writ petitions are that the petitioners were appointed in the year 1992 as Assistant Urdu Typist/Urdu Translator at different places in the State of Bihar. On 15.11.2000, the State was bifurcated and thereafter, in the year 2006 as per the orders of the State Advisory Committee, the services of the petitioners were allocated to the successor State of Jharkhand. Subsequently, the petitioners have challenged the letter No. 266 dated 05.08.2011 and letter No. 14164, both issued by State of Bihar by which the cases of the petitioners for allocation of their services to the successor State of Bihar has been rejected on the ground that the State of Jharkhand is not agreeing to it unless sufficient number of employees are also sent back from the State of Bihar to the State of Jharkhand as Urdu Typist/Urdu Translator. Thereafter, the petitioners of W.P(S) No. 4210 of 2014 along with others moved before the Hon'ble Patna High Court in CWJC No. 16167 of 2010 and the same was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners on the basis of their option but on the denial of the State of Jharkhand, the same was also denied. Thereafter, the petitioner again knocked the door of the Hon'ble Patna High Court by filing CWJC No. 21936 of 2011 and this time the Hon'ble Court rejected the writ petition on the ground of denial by the State of Jharkhand. Thereafter, the petitioner again knocked the door of the Hon'ble Patna High Court by filing CWJC No. 21936 of 2011 and this time the Hon'ble Court rejected the writ petition on the ground of denial by the State of Jharkhand. Aggrieved by the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner moved before the Hon'ble Patna High Court in LPA No. 911 of 2012 and the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Court has also rejected the cases of the petitioners for allocating their services from the State of Jharkhand to the State of Bihar and upheld the order of the learned Single Judge. It is the further case of the petitioners that the State of Bihar vide memo No. 6764 dated 30.07.2013, circulated notices addressed to the Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand whereby the options were asked from the respective employees within 30 days for inter-State transfer. In response to the said circular, the petitioners gave their option for inter-State transfer on different dates but within the stipulated period of one month. Subsequently, the State of Bihar has come-out with a notification circulated vide memo No. 185 dated 28.04.2014, under which the Urdu Typist/Urdu Translator have been given better promotional avenues like any other employees working in the successor State. Such employees are given opportunity for promotion from the post of LDC to UDC and thereafter to the post of Head Clerk and further more promotions but the same benefits are not given to the employees working in the State of Jharkhand. It is the further case of the petitioners that the State of Jharkhand had agreed to allocate the services of the petitioners to the State of Bihar as a policy decision but the condition which was put in last concluding portion was that against such posts, same number of persons may be allocated from the State of Bihar to the State of Jharkhand, which, according to the petitioners, is non est and liable to be declared as void as the State of Bihar is providing better career option and no one can leave the same. Since the petitioners have been denied their benefits of allocation of services and are in disadvantageous position, they have knocked the door of this Hon'ble Court for redressal of their grievances. 5. Mr. A. Allam, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Since the petitioners have been denied their benefits of allocation of services and are in disadvantageous position, they have knocked the door of this Hon'ble Court for redressal of their grievances. 5. Mr. A. Allam, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Priya Shresth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously urges that aforesaid privilege is deprived in the State of Jharkhand. The employees working in the State of Jharkhand are put in a disadvantageous position due to their allocation of services in the State of Jharkhand and the same is in violation of Sections 71, 72 and 73 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 and ultimately, against the provisions of their fundamental and legal rights vested in the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argues that the services of the petitioners may be allocated to the State of Bihar on the ground of their option for inter-State transfer and also on the ground that they are permanent resident of State of Bihar and their family members are residing there itself. The action of the respondents is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India since the petitioners' right is being infringed for better and suitable option available to them as mentioned hereinabove. 6. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State of Jharkhand vehemently opposes the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and argues that the cases of the petitioners have already been rejected by the Nodal Department in 2010 vide paragraph No. 5 of the letter dated 30.07.2010. Learned counsel further submits that the submissions of the petitioner regarding so-called better service condition of Urdu Typists/Urdu Translator in the State of Bihar has been issued on 28.04.2014 by Govt. of Bihar and hence, it does not fall under the ambit of State Re-organization Act, 2000. He further submits that in letter dated 30.07.2010 it has clearly been mentioned that the concerned employees would only be relieved when fresh appointments on those posts are made or equal numbers of employees are allocated from the State of Bihar to the State of Jharkhand. Hence, this is not a dissent in any manner. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the above, the instant writ applications are devoid of any merit and are liable to dismissed outrightly. 7. Mr. Hence, this is not a dissent in any manner. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the above, the instant writ applications are devoid of any merit and are liable to dismissed outrightly. 7. Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Bihar submits that in view of the notification of the Central Government dated 31.08.2010, these writ petitions are not maintainable. No consideration can be given to any representation regarding cadre allocation. Mr. Roy draws the attention of the Court towards page 46 of the writ petition and submits that the same and similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Patna High Court in CWJC No. 21936 of 2011 and the Hon'ble Court has dismissed the writ petition in view of the notification of the Central Government and hence, the present writ petitions are also not tenable and fit to be dismissed. 8. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that earlier the petitioners of W.P(S) No. 4210 of 2014 had moved before the Hon'ble Patna High Court and a direction was given for passing reasoned order. The petitioners have now approached this Court for cadre allocation from State of Jharkhand and vice versa, on the ground indicated therein. The State of Jharkhand has been created 17 years back and at the behest of Union of India, a time frame was fixed. It was decided to bring down curtain on such cadre transfer by giving a final opportunity to the employees in the year 2010 itself. Last date for such consideration was 30.07.2010 and the notification, if any, was to be issued by 31st August, 2010. Even this transfer opportunity was limited to mutual transfer on the basis of arrangement to be worked out between the employees because cadre transfer had already been completed and brought to an end. It is on this background that the impugned order has been passed by the Principal Secretary. The issue of cadre transfer, in view of the above, cannot be entertained after more than 17 years of the bifurcation of the State neither it can be opened for the petitioners to move applications as and when they choose. They have to accept their cadre to which they have been posted. The issue of cadre transfer, in view of the above, cannot be entertained after more than 17 years of the bifurcation of the State neither it can be opened for the petitioners to move applications as and when they choose. They have to accept their cadre to which they have been posted. It will be in their interest to work diligently till they reach the age of superannuation in view of the fact that Central Government has already come out with a notification dated 31.08.2010 regarding final cadre transfer and as such, there is no ground to entertain these writ petitions. 9. Resultantly, these writ petitions merit dismissal and are hereby dismissed.