Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1048 (PAT)

Anil Kumar v. State of Bihar

2018-07-12

SHIVAJI PANDEY

body2018
JUDGMENT : SHIVAJI PANDEY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Bank. 2. The petitioner initially challenged the order of his repatriation from the Bihar State Beverages Corporation to the Multi State Cooperative Land Development Bank as in the letter dated 20.04.2017 it has been mentioned that on account of certain financial irregularities a proceeding was initiation and his services has been dispensed with. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has filed an Interlocutory Application being I.A. No.5045 of 2018, wherein the prayer has been made against the Bank that the letter of termination is a back-dated and liable to be set aside. 4. Originally, the petitioner is/was an employee of the Multi State Cooperative Land Development Bank and for certain period the petitioner along with others were deputed in the Bihar State Beverages Corporation, but not as permanent employees. The Corporation has not large number of permanent employees as Corporation used to take the employees from different Organizations including the Bank. It appears that the petitioner was originally employee of the Bank but proceeded departmentally, ultimately, has been dismissed from service. This statement has been made in the said letter dated 20.04.2017. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to impress upon this Court that it is a back-dated dismissal letter and it requires interference by this Court as different correspondences of the letters between the Bank and the Beverages Corporation reflects no such action of termination was taken against the petitioner. 6. So far the maintainability of the writ petitioner against the Bank is concerned, the same has been decided by the Special Bench of this Court in the case of The Organizer, Dehri, C.D. & C.M. Union Limited v. The State of Bihar and Others, reported in 2014(1) PLJR, 695, wherein the Court has held that the writ petition is not maintainable against the Cooperative society. 7. 7. So far the repatriation of petitioner is concerned, it cannot create a vested right to an employee to remain all time to deputed Organization and the parent organization has inherent right to withdraw deputationist at any time, inasmuch as, in the said letter, it has been mentioned that he has been dismissed from the service, so the question of his continuation in the Bihar Beverages Corporation does not arise, as order of termination is starring at the face of the petitioner. 8. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.