JUDGMENT : Dr. S.N. Pathak, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondent no. 2 to relieve him forthwith for joining to the State of Bihar, in view of the Notification contained in Memo No.Sta./Jha.Ni.-244/10-10416 dated 6.9.2010, issued by Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar, whereby he was allocated to the State of Bihar with consent of both the States. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondent no. 3 to accept his joining in the State of Bihar in light of said Notification issued by State of Bihar. 3. The factual exposition as has been stated in the writ petition is that petitioner was appointed on the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer by the Notification contained in Memo No. 1/S3-404/87 Ka.3563 dated 26.5.1989 issued by the Welfare Department, Government of Bihar. After bifurcation of the State of Bihar, in light of the provisions enshrined in the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, the employees including the petitioner were directed to submit their options for allocation of services to the States of Jharkhand or Bihar. Therefore, the petitioner submitted his application opting for allocation of his services to the State of Bihar, which would be evident from the application of the petitioner dated 15.2.2001. 4. It is stated that the petitioner is originally resident of: Village & P.O. Sanjhauri, P.S.-Sanjhauli, District-Rohtas, Bihar. At the time of bifurcation of the State, i.e. on 15.11.2000, the petitioner was posted as 'Ayurvedic Medical Officer, Rupabel, Jamui in the State of Bihar. The State of Bihar also recommended that the petitioner be allotted to the State of Bihar itself. Despite, these facts being available on record, he had been allocated to the successor State of Jharkhand. The petitioner was, thereafter, relieved by the State of Bihar, Welfare Department, to join in the successor State of Jharkhand. This order of allocation to the successor State of Jharkhand was passed by the Government of India on 9.2.2007. It is further stated that the Government of India further issued guidelines by letter no. 14/279/2002 S.R.(S.) dated 8.6.2006 to the effect that despite final allocation, if both the States agree, one or other employee can be posted from the State of Jharkhand to the State of Bihar and from the State of Bihar to the State of Jharkhand. It is further stated that the Government of India further issued guidelines by letter no. 14/279/2002 S.R.(S.) dated 8.6.2006 to the effect that despite final allocation, if both the States agree, one or other employee can be posted from the State of Jharkhand to the State of Bihar and from the State of Bihar to the State of Jharkhand. Thereafter, the Government of Bihar, Department of Welfare, issued Notification No. 1305 dated 27.2.2007 directed the petitioner to join in the State of Jharkhand. At this point of time, the petitioner was posted as Ayurvedic Medical Officer, Rupabel, Jamui In compliance of the direction, petitioner joined in the State of Jharkhand on 22.3.2007. However, he was kept for waiting for posting and finally, he was posted in the month of September 2007 as Ayurvedic Medical Officer, Odga, Simdega where he joined on 20.9.2007. It is further alleged that the Government of Bihar, Home (Special Department, issued further guideline relating to allocation of the employees, who have already been allocated the successor States. This guideline was issued by letter no.10458 dated 17.12.2009. This led to submission of an application by this petitioner on 11.1.2010. The petitioner enumerated various reasons for his allocation to the State of Bihar, as would be evident from the application of the petitioner for allocation to the State of Bihar dated 11.1.2010. The contents of the statements made in the application dated 11.1.2010 was duly inquired into by the competent authorities of both the successor States. Both the successor States gave consent for allocation of the petitioner from Jharkhand to Bihar. The State of Bihar by letter no.1G./E.Ji.Ka.20-02/2010-1413 dated 30.7.2010, wrote in specific terms to the Special Executive Officer, Home (Special) Department, Bihar, which was a Nodal Department, to the effect that the State of Bihar had no objection, if the petitioner would be allocated to the State of Bihar. 5. In view of consent granted by both the successor States of Jharkhand and Bihar, the final notification was issued by the Nodal Department i.e. Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar, allocating services of the petitioner to the State of Bihar, as would be evident from the Notification contained in Memo No. Sta.Jha./Vi.-244/10-10416 dated 6.9.2010. After aforesaid notification dated 6.9.2010 was served upon the petitioner, he submitted an application to the respondent no. After aforesaid notification dated 6.9.2010 was served upon the petitioner, he submitted an application to the respondent no. 2 on 6.10.2010 requesting therein to relieve him for joining to the State of Bihar, in view of the notification dated 6.9.2010. Petitioner submitted another application on 10.1.2011 to the respondent no. 3 in light of the notification dated 6.9.2010 and further requested to the State of Bihar that the State of Jharkhand be directed to relieve him in order to enable him to join in the State of Bihar. 6. It is alleged that when such representation of the petitioner did not yield any fruitful result, he submitted his joining in the State of Bihar on 20.1.2011, which was duly received in the office of Secretary, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department, Government of Bihar. Thereafter, petitioner has been running from pillar to post and submitted various representations but no action has been taken by the respondents upon such representations. It is further alleged that the Under Secretary to Government. Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department, Government of Bihar has issued a letter dated 12.10.2015 addressed to the petitioner, whereby, the State of Bihar has refused to accept joining of the petitioner on the ground inter alia that there has been much delay in relieving by the State of Jharkhand and at present, there is no vacant post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer. However, petitioner has been able to obtain a letter contained in Memo No. 2/Ayu.Chi.Ke.(Sandha.)-01-02/2012-10 dated 10.5.2016 along with its enclosures, which unequivocally suggests that there is at least two (2) posts of Ayurvedic Medical Officer which are lying vacant in the State of Bihar. One post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer is vacant at Rupabel in the district of Jamui and other post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer is vacant at Rehal in the district of Rohtas. Once the final notification was issued by the Nodal Department i.e. Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar, on 6.9.2010, allocating services of the petitioner to the State of Bihar, the State of Jharkhand is duty bound to relieve him to join the State of Bihar and the State of Bihar, in turn, is duty bound to accept his joining without any further delay. It is further averred that age of retirement of Ayurvedic Medical Officer in the State of Jharkhand is 60 years as on date and date of birth of the petitioner is 8.4.1957, and therefore, the petitioner retired during pendency of' the writ petition in the State of Jharkhand on 30.4.2017 only due to inaction on part of the respondents whereas age of retirement of Ayurvedic Medical Officer in the State of Bihar is 67 years. Had the, petitioner been relieved to' join State of Bihar, he would continue in the State of Bihar for seven more years. Since grievance of the petitioner has not been redressed and as such, he has preferred instant writ petition with the reliefs as prayed for. 7. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. R. Anand, Shiv Shankar Kumar and Kumari Rashmi strenuously urges that respondent nos.1 and 2 are duty bound to relieve the petitioner for joining in the State of Bihar forthwith and the State of Bihar, in turn, is duty bound to accept joining of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that respondent no. 3 is duty bound to accept joining of the petitioner in view of the Notification dated 6th September, 2010, which has been issued with consent of both the States. Learned counsel further submitted that action of the respondents concerned is violative of the provisions enshrined in the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 and their own decision which is contained in Notification under Memo No. Sta./Jha./Vi.244/10-10416, dated 6.9.2010, issued by the Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar. Learned counsel further submitted that the State of Jharkhand has illegally and arbitrarily not relieved the petitioner and made him to retire on 30.4.2017 on attaining age of 60 years whereas, had he been relieved and State of Bihar would have accepted his joining, he would have continued for seven more years there as the age of retirement is 67 years in the State of Bihar in the case of Ayurvedic Medical Officers. Learned counsel further submitted that in the case of the petitioner, consent was duly granted by both the States i.e. State of Jharkhand and State of Bihar, the final notification was also issued by the Nodal Department i.e. Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar, allocating services of the petitioner to the State of Bihar, which is evident from the Notification contained in Memo No.Sta.Jha.Ni.-244/10-10416 dated 6.9.2010. After aforesaid notification dated 6.9.2010 was served upon the petitioner, he submitted an application to the respondent no.2 on 6.10.2010 requesting therein to relieve him for joining to the State of Bihar, in view of the notification dated 6.10-2010. Petitioner thereafter submitted another application on 10.1.2011 to the respondent no. 3 in light of the notification dated 6.9.2010 and further requested to the State of Bihar that the State of Jharkhand be directed to relieve him in order to enable him to join in the State of Bihar, but no heed was paid and he has been put to great loss. 8. Per contra counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents-State of Bihar as well as State of Jharkhand. 9. Mr. Bhawesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand submitted that petitioner has already been relieved in view of order and direction of this Court and now it is State of Bihar to take a decision in the matter. 10. Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Pankaj Kumar, appeared on behalf of the State of Bihar vehemently opposed contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and further argued that since petitioner was not lawfully relieved from the State of Jharkhand, there was no question for acceptance of his joining. The representation of the petitioner was duly rejected on 12.10.2015 due to his non-joining in the Department. His joining could not have been accepted without any relieving order. Learned counsel further submitted that as of now there is no vacant position to adjust the petitioner against vacant post. Learned counsel however fairly submitted that in view of order of this Court, petitioner was relieved from the State of Jharkhand vide Memo No. 2258, dated 31.7.2017 to join State of Bihar with effect from 30.4.2017 (i.e. date of retirement from the State of Jharkhand). Petitioner, thereafter submitted his joining on 1.8.2017 to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, Welfare Department of the Government of Bihar. Since Home Department is the Nodal Department for Cadre Allocation. Learned counsel further submitted that after considering entire facts, joining of the petitioner has been rejected and has been duly communicated. Writ petition has no merit and fit to be dismissed. 11. Since Home Department is the Nodal Department for Cadre Allocation. Learned counsel further submitted that after considering entire facts, joining of the petitioner has been rejected and has been duly communicated. Writ petition has no merit and fit to be dismissed. 11. Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that case of the petitioner needs consideration. On 18.4.2017, when this case was taken up, it was observed that: “... ... ... In the event notification dated 6.9.2010 is held legal and valid, petitioner's retiring from the service under the State of Jharkhand shall not be an impediment in permitting the petitioner to join State of Bihar. ..." The said Notification dated 6.9.2010 was never challenged before any forum by anyone nor it was ever disputed by anyone. The cadre allocation of the petitioner, therefore, prima facie appears to be still in force and petitioner cannot be deprived from the benefits arising out of said Notification and, therefore, vide order dated 5.7.2017, it was observed that: "... .. . ... The said Notification dated 6.9.2010 is not under challenge either by the State of Bihar or the State of Jharkhand and they have never disputed the petitioner's cadre allocation and, therefore, prima facie it appears that the said Notification is still in force and petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefits arising out of the said notification and, therefore, as and such petitioner is relieved from the State of Jharkhand and joins State of Bihar, he has to be given benefits of Annexure-7. The State of Jharkhand has not even whispered that under what circumstances services of the petitioner were retained in the State of Jharkhand even after notification dated 6.9.2010." 12. From perusal of record, it appears that after order of this Court dated 5.7.2017, petitioner had been relieved from the State of Jharkhand vide order dated 31.7.2017. Thereafter, petitioner approached before the State of Bihar for acceptance of his joining on 1.8.2017 in pursuance to the order of the Court. From perusal of Second Supplementary Affidavit filed by the State of Bihar, wherein at para-9, respondents have said as under: "9. Thereafter, petitioner approached before the State of Bihar for acceptance of his joining on 1.8.2017 in pursuance to the order of the Court. From perusal of Second Supplementary Affidavit filed by the State of Bihar, wherein at para-9, respondents have said as under: "9. That it is submitted that in compliance of the Hon'ble Court's order dated 2.8.2017, a reasoned order has been passed by this Department vide Memo No. 2311, dated 8.9.2017, whereby and whereunder the representation submitted by the petitioner on 1.8.2017 related to acceptance of joining has been rejected and also communicated to the petitioner as well on the address mentioned in the affidavit of the aforesaid writ application." The reasons assigned for rejection of representation of the petitioner is not acceptable to this Court. The respondents-State of Bihar, vide order dated 12.10.2015, has rejected claim of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner did not approach State of Bihar within time in view of Notification dated 6.9.2010 by which he had been allocated State of Bihar and further, no post of Ayurvedic Doctor is lying vacant. It further appears that in the rejection order dated 8.9.2017, it has been mentioned that petitioner superannuated on 30.4.2017 and relieved from the State of Jharkhand on, 31.7.2017 with effect from 30.4.2017 i.e. the date of his superannuation and as such, acceptance of his joining is not in accordance with law and as such, it has been rejected. Petitioner continued in the State of Jharkhand and was relieved only upon interference of this Court. In view of earlier observations and directions of this Court, it was incumbent upon the respondents-State of Bihar to accept joining of the petitioner whereas, the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily rejected the same in complete defiance of the order of this Court. Petitioner cannot be made to suffer because of lethargic attitude of the respondents authorities. It is only because of delay and laches on part of the respondents, petitioner had not been relieved on time and has been made to suffer. Now in view of various observations, since petitioner has already been relieved, the respondents-State of Bihar could not deny his joining on frivolous grounds. 13. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines, judicial proposition and various orders and observations of this Court, the orders dated 12.10.2015 and 8.9.2017 are hereby quashed and set aside. Now in view of various observations, since petitioner has already been relieved, the respondents-State of Bihar could not deny his joining on frivolous grounds. 13. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines, judicial proposition and various orders and observations of this Court, the orders dated 12.10.2015 and 8.9.2017 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents-State of Bihar is directed to taken a final decision for acceptance of joining of the petitioner keeping into account the orders and observations made by this Court, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Needless to say, if favourable order is passed, the respondents are directed to accept joining of the petitioner with all consequential benefits within a period of six weeks thereafter. 14. The writ petition stands disposed of.