JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal by the State of Bihar is against the judgment and order of the learned First Court allowing in substance the respondent-writ petitioner’s plea for being permitted to join the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer in the State of Bihar upon being relieved from the State of Jharkhand. The learned First Court has set aside two orders of rejection of the writ petitioner’s representation on that count, dated 12th October, 2015 and 8th September, 2017 and directed the State of Bihar to take final decision for acceptance of joining of the petitioner taking into account the orders and observations made by the Court in the judgment under appeal. 2. The writ petitioner was appointed in the subject post under the Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, on 26th May, 1989. Subsequent to coming into operation of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 and formation of the State of Jharkhand, he had submitted application opting for his allocation in the State of Bihar. On 8th June, 2006, the Government of India issued guidelines relating to allocation of employees in respect of whom the Government of India had taken final decision. The procedure for allocation is guided by Section 72 of the 2000 Act, which stipulates:- “Provisions relating to services in Bihar and Jharkhand.––(1) Every person, who immediately before the appointed day is serving in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Bihar shall, on and from that day provisionally continue to serve in connection with the affairs of the State of Bihar unless he is required, by general or special order of the Central Government to serve provisionally in connection with the affairs of the State of Jharkhand: Provided that no direction shall be issued under this section after the expiry of a period of one year from the appointed day. (2) As soon as may be after the appointed day, the Central Government shall, by general or special order, determine the successor State to which every person referred to in subsection (1) shall be finally allotted for service and the date with effect from which such allotment shall take effect or be deemed to have taken effect. (2) As soon as may be after the appointed day, the Central Government shall, by general or special order, determine the successor State to which every person referred to in subsection (1) shall be finally allotted for service and the date with effect from which such allotment shall take effect or be deemed to have taken effect. (3) Every person, who is finally allotted under the provisions of sub-section (2) to a successor State shall, if he is not already serving therein be made available for serving in the successor State from such date as may be agreed upon between the Governments concerned or in default of such agreement, as may be determined by the Central Government.” 3. The writ petitioner’s case is that he was originally resident of the successor State of Bihar, belonging to Rohtas District, and at the time of bifurcation of the State, he was posted in the State of Bihar only at Rupabel, Jamuai. It appears that the State of Bihar had recommended that the writ petitioner be allotted to Bihar but the writ petitioner was allocated to the State of Jharkhand by an order of allocation passed by the Government of India on 9th February, 2007. On that basis the Government of Bihar directed the writ petitioner to join the State of Jharkhand. After being kept in waiting for posting for some time, he joined as Ayurvedic Medical Officer at Odga in Simdega District on 20th September, 2007. There was decision by the Union Government that even after final allocation, there could be posting of an employee to any of the two successor States provided both the States agreed to such allocation. This prompted the writ petitioner to make an application on 11th January, 2010 for his allocation to the State of Bihar. Subsequently, both the States had given consent for allocation of the writ petitioner to the State of Bihar and final notification in that regard was issued on 3rd/6th September, 2010. This prompted the writ petitioner to make an application on 11th January, 2010 for his allocation to the State of Bihar. Subsequently, both the States had given consent for allocation of the writ petitioner to the State of Bihar and final notification in that regard was issued on 3rd/6th September, 2010. The said notification along with its English translation is reproduced below:- **fcgkj ljdkj x`g ¼fo'ks"k½ foHkkx vf/klwpuk iVuk] fnukad -----@------ @2010 la[;k&LVs0@>k0@fo0& ----------------------------@lh0 dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r ,oa isa'ku ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyh ds i= la[;k&14@279@ 2002 ,l0vkj0¼,l0½ fnukad&08-06-2006 ds }kjk fn;s x;s fn'kk&funsZ'k rFkk bl laca/k esa dkfeZd ,oa iz'kklfud lq/kkj rFkk jktHkk"kk foHkkx] >kj[kaM] jk¡ph ds i= la[;k&6860 fnukad&21-12-2006 ds }kjk nh xbZ lgefr ds vkyksd esa fcgkj iquxZBu vf/kfu;e&2000 dh /kkjk&72 dh mi/kkjk¼2½ ds vUrxZr dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vafre :i ls vkoafVr vuqlwfpr tkfr ,oa vuqlwfpr tutkfr dY;k.k foHkkx ds fuEukafdr dfeZ;ksa dks muds vuqjks/k ij ,dy :i esa fuEu izdkj ls laoxZ iqujh{k.k@LFkkukUrj.k fd;k tkrk gS& dze la0 deZpkjh dk uke ,oa inuke tUe frfFk vafre vkoZru ls lacaf/kr Hkkjr ljdkj ds vkns'k la0 ,oa frfFk Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk vafre :i ls vkoafVr jkT; ,dy :i esa LFkkukUrfjr jkT; 1- Mk0 pS=s; dqekj flag vk;qosZfnd fpfdRlk ink0 08-04-1957 53¼>k½@2006 09-02-2007 >kj[kaM fcgkj 2- mi;qZDr laoxZ iqujh{k.k@LFkkukUrj.k esa voj lfpo] vuqlwfpr tkfr ,oa vuqlwfpr tutkfr dY;k.k foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk ds i=kad 1413 fnukad 30-07-2010 ,oa mi lfpo] dY;k.k foHkkx] >kj[k.M ds i=kad 510 fnukad 08-03-2010 ds }kjk nksuksa jkT; ljdkjksa dh lgefr izkIr gSA bl LFkkukUrj.k ds QyLo:i ;k=k HkÙkk ns; ugha gksxk rFkk x`g ¼fo'ks"k½ foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk ds i= la[;k&10458 fnukad 17-12-2009 ds vkyksd esa ojh;rk dk fu/kkZj.k gksxkA fcgkj jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls g0@vLi"V 03@9@10 ¼jktho jatu flUgk½ ljdkj ds mi lfpo “No.-Sta/Jha./Vi- …………… /C. in pursuance of guidelines given vide letter No. 14/ 279/ 2002 S.R. (S.) dated 08.06.2006 by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Government of India, New Delhi and concurrence of Department of Personnel, Administrative Reform and Rajbhasha, Jharkhand, Ranchi thereon in this regard, issued through Letter No.-6860 dated 21.12.2006, cadre revision/transfer of the following employee of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department, as finally allocated by the Central Government under sub-section (2) of Section 72 of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000 upon his request, as a single, is done as follows: Sl. No Name and Post of employee Date of birth Order No. and date of the Government of India related to Final allocation The State finally allocated by the Government of India State where transferred as a single Dr. Chaitraya Kumar Singh, Ayurvedik Medical Officer 08.04.1957 53(Jha)/2006 09.02.2007 Jharkhand Bihar 2. In the above mentioned Cadre revision/transfer, the consent of both the State Governments have been obtained vide Letter No.-1413 dated 30.07.2010 of the Under Secretary, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna and Letter No.510 dated 08.03.2010 of the Deputy Secretary, Welfare Department, Jharkhand. No Travelling Allowances shall be admissible consequent upon this transfer and the seniority shall be determined according to Letter No.-10458 dated 17.12.2009 of the Home (Special) Department, Bihar, Patna. By order of the Governor of Bihar Sd/- (illegible) 03/9/10 (Rajeev Ranjan Sinha) Deputy Secretary to the Government” 4. Before the learned First Court, complaint of the writ petitioner was that in spite of such consent given by both the States, he was never relieved by the State of Jharkhand for joining the State of Bihar even though he made several representations for that purpose. On 12th October, 2015 the writ petitioner was informed by a communication made on behalf of the Government of Bihar that his plea was being rejected as he did not join in the State of Bihar upon being relieved from the State of Jharkhand in time and there was no vacancy of Ayurvedic Medical Officer in the State of Bihar at that point of time. A copy of the said communication along with its English translation is reproduced below:- **fcgkj ljdkj vuq0 tkfr ,oa vuq0 tutkfr dY;k.k foHkkx la[;k&1th@bZ0&234@09&2066 izs"kd] ljdkj ds voj lfpoA lsok esa] MkW0 pS=s; dqekj flag] vk;qosZfnd fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjhA vksMxk ¼lq[kk >kfj;k½] fleMsxk] >kj[kaMA iVuk] fnukad&12@10@15 fo"k;% fcgkj iquZxBu vf/kfu;e] 2000 ds vkyksd esa ,dy :i esa fcgkj jkT; vkoafVr ds lUnHkZ esa fojfer gsrq izkIr vH;kosnu ij dkjZokbZ ds lEcU/k esaA egk'k;] funs'kkuqlkj] mi;qZDr fo"k; ds lEcU/k esa dguk gS fd x`g ¼fo'ks"k½ foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk la0&10416] fnukad 06-09-2010 }kjk ,dy :i esa fcgkj jkT; vkoafVr fd;k x;k gS] ijUrq vkids }kjk lle; >kj[kaM jkT; ls fojfer gksdj fcgkj jkT; esa ;ksxnku lefiZr ugha fd;k x;k gSA orZeku esa fcgkj jkT; esa vk;qosZfnd fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh in fjDr ugha gSA vr,o lE;d fopkjksijkUr vkidk vH;kosnu vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA 2- izLrko esa ekuuh; ea=h@foHkkxh; lfpo dk vuqeksnu izkIr gSA fo'oklHkktu g0@& ljdkj ds voj lfpoA** “Subject: Regarding taking action on application received for relieving with respect to allocation of State of Bihar, as a Single, pursuant to Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000. Sir, As directed, with reference to above it is to state that vide Notification No.-10416 dated 06.09.2010 of Home (Special) Department, you have been allocated State of Bihar, as a single, but you have not submitted your joining in the State of Bihar after being relieved from the State of Jharkhand in time. At present there is no vacancy of Ayurvedic Medical Officer in the State of Bihar. Therefore, after due consideration your application is rejected. 2- This proposal has got approval of the Hon’ble Minister/Departmental Secretary. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Under Secretary to the Government” 5. The writ petitioner attained his age of superannuation on 30th April, 2017, which, for the State of Jharkhand, is 60 years. His date of birth is 8th April, 1957. It is also admitted position that in the meantime, the superannuation age for similar service stood enhanced to 67 years in the State of Bihar. The writ petition, out of which this appeal arises, was instituted on 6th April, 2017 praying for, inter-alia, directions upon the State of Jharkhand to relieve him and upon the State of Bihar to accept his joining. In the writ petition, an interim order was passed on 18th April, 2017 in the following terms:- “Mr. Kr. The writ petition, out of which this appeal arises, was instituted on 6th April, 2017 praying for, inter-alia, directions upon the State of Jharkhand to relieve him and upon the State of Bihar to accept his joining. In the writ petition, an interim order was passed on 18th April, 2017 in the following terms:- “Mr. Kr. Rahul Kamlesh, the learned J.C. to S.C. II appears on behalf the respondent-State of Jharkhand. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the learned JC to GA (Bihar) appears on behalf of the respondent-State of Bihar. Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of the illegal action on the part of the respondent-State of Jharkhand in not relieving the petitioner, the petitioner in view of the extant notifications issued by the respondent-State of Jharkhand shall superannuate from service on 30.04.2017, however, had he been relieved in time and permitted to join service under the Government of Bihar, he would continue till he attains the age 67 years. Be that as it may, there cannot be an order staying the operation of the Jharkhand Rules to permit the petitioner to continue in service, in anticipation that he may finally succeed. In the event notification dated 06.09.2010 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 respondents are granted four weeks' time for filing counter-affidavit. Post the matter on 16.06.2017.” 6. On 5th July, 2017, further order was passed by a learned Single Judge in the same writ petition to the following effect :- “In the instant case petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent – State of Jharkhand to relieve him in order to enable him to join State of Bihar in his respective post. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to Cadre allocation dated 06.09.2010 (Annexure-7), the petitioner, who is an Ayurvedic Medical Officer, was allocated State of Bihar but in spite thereof, he has not been relieved to join his post in the State of Bihar. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to Cadre allocation dated 06.09.2010 (Annexure-7), the petitioner, who is an Ayurvedic Medical Officer, was allocated State of Bihar but in spite thereof, he has not been relieved to join his post in the State of Bihar. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner moved from pillar to post and tried his best to get his relieving order and join State of Bihar but neither he has been relieved from the State of Jharkhand nor the State of Bihar accepted his joining in absence of relieving order. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, State of Bihar has come up with an affidavit dated 20.06.2017. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar that at present there is no vacancy to accommodate the petitioner. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has obtained an information under Right to Information. He further submits that from the said information it is apparent that still there are two vacancies against which petitioner could have been accommodated. Kumar Rahul, learned J.C. to S.C.-II submits that in view of counter affidavit filed by the State of Jharkhand, this writ petition has now become infructuous as the petitioner has already superannuated from service on 30.04.2017. It appears that vide Order dated 18.04.2017, this Court had given a specific finding in view of the fact that petitioner was likely to superannuate with effect from 30.04.2017, which is reproduced hereunder: “Be that as it may, there cannot be an order staying the operation of the Jharkhand Rules to permit the petitioner to continue in service, in anticipation that he may finally succeed. In the event notification dated 06.09.2010 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 06.09.2010 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 when 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 06.09.2010. In the circumstances, I hereby direct the State of Jharkhand to file specific affidavit within a period of one week from today as to why petitioner be not relieved from the service to join State of Bihar. State of Bihar is also directed to confirm the vacancy position. Put up this case on 12.07.2017. Let a copy of this order be handed over to counsel for the parties.” 7. During pendency of the writ petition, and after the order was passed on 5th July, 2017, on 31st July, 2017 a memorandum was issued by the Secretary, Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, bearing No. 2258 relieving the writ petitioner to the State of Bihar from the date of his superannuation i.e. w.e.f. 30th April, 2017. During pendency of the writ petition, and after the order was passed on 5th July, 2017, on 31st July, 2017 a memorandum was issued by the Secretary, Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, bearing No. 2258 relieving the writ petitioner to the State of Bihar from the date of his superannuation i.e. w.e.f. 30th April, 2017. The said memorandum along with its English translation is reproduced below:- **>kj[k.M ljdkj dY;k.k foHkkx lafpdk la0&01@04&vkw&fp0LFkk0&01@2017&2258@31-7-17 vkns'k dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r ,oa isa'ku ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyh ds i= la[;k&14@279@2002 ,l0vkj0¼,l0½ fnukad& 08-06-2006 }kjk fn;s x;s fn'kk funsZ'k rFkk fcgkj ,oa >kj[k.M jkT; dh lgefr ds vkyksd esa fcgkj ljdkj x`g ¼fo'ks"k½ foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk la[;k&10416] fnukad& 06-09-2010 }kjk MkW0 pS=s; dqekj flag] vk;qosZfnd fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh dks muds vuqjks/k ij ,dy :i ls fcgkj jkT; laoxZ iqujh{k.k@LFkkukUrj.k fd;k x;kA ¼vuqyXud&1½ MkW0 pS=s; dqekj flag us mDr vf/klwpuk ds vkyksd esa vius i=kad& 71@10] fnukad& 06-10-2010 }kjk lfpo] dY;k.k foHkkx] >kj[k.M] jk¡ph dks LFkkukUrfjr jkT; fcgkj esa ;ksxnku djus gsrq fojfer djus ds fy, i= fn;k] ¼vuqyXud&2½ ijUrq og fojfer ugha gq, ,oa og >kj[k.M jkT; esa dk;Zjr jg x;sA MkW0 pS=s; dqekj flag }kjk fnukad& 06-04-2017 dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] >kj[k.M] jk¡ph esa WP(S) No. 1898/2017 nk;j fd;k x;k gSA mDr ;kfpdk esa buds }kjk fuEufyf[kr dkxtkr layXu fd;s x;s gSa %& ¼1½ >kj[k.M jkT; ls fojfer gksus dh izR;k'kk esa fnukad& 20-01-2011 dks lfpo] vuqlwfpr tkfr ,oa vuqlwfpr tutkfr dY;k.k foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk esa ;ksxnku nsrs gq, fjDr in ds fo:) inLFkkfir djus laca/kh vuqjks/k i=A ¼vuqyXud&3½ ¼2½ iqu% fojfer gksus dh izR;k'kk esa fnukad& 30-09-2013 dks fcgkj jkT; esa fn;s x;s ;ksxnku dh izfrA ¼vuqyXud&4½ ¼3½ fnukad& 10-06-2015 dks lfpo] vuqlwfpr tkfr ,oa vuqlwfpr tutkfr dY;k.k foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk ls dY;k.k foHkkx] >kj[k.M ljdkj dks fojfer djus gsrq Lekfjr djus ls lacaf/kr vuqjks/k i=A ¼vuqyXud&5½ vuqlwfpr tkfr ,oa vuqlwfpr tutkfr dY;k.k foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk ds Kkikad& 2066 fnukad& 12-10-2015 }kjk MkW0 pS=s; dqekj flag ds vH;kosnu dks lle; >kj[k.M jkT; ls fojfer gksdj fcgkj jkT; esa ;ksxnku lefiZr ugha djus ,oa vk;qosZfnd fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh dk in fjDr ugha jgus ds vkyksd esa vLohd`r fd;k x;kA ¼vuqyXud&6½ ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] >kj[k.M] jk¡ph esa nk;j WP(S) No. 1898/2017 esa fnukad&18-04-2017 dks ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fuEu izdkj gS] “Be that as it may, there cannot be an order staying the operation of the Jharkhand Rules to permit the petitioner to continue in service, in anticipation that he may finally succeed. In the event notification dated 06-09-2010 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.” ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad&05-07-2017 dks ikfjr vkns'k fuEu izdkj gS] “The said Notification dated 06.09.2010 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 when 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 06.09.2010. In the circumstances, I hereby direct the State of Jharkhand to file specific affidavit within a period of one week from today as to why petitioner be not relived from the service to join State of Bihar. State of Bihar is also directed to confirm the vacancy position.” ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad& 05-07-2017 ,oa fnukad& 18-07-2017 dks ikfjr vkns'k ds vuqikyu ds dze esa fcgkj ljdkj x`g ¼fo'ks"k½ foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk la[;k& 10416] fnukad& 06-09-2010 }kjk ,dy :i ls fcgkj jkT; ds fy, laoxZ iqujh{k.k@LFkkukUrj.k fd;s tkus ds ifjizs{; esa MkW0 pS=s; dqekj flag] vk;qosZfnd fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh dks mudh lsokfuo`fr dh frfFk 30-04-2017 ds izHkko ls fcgkj jkT; ds fy, fojfer fd;k tkrk gSA uksV%& vkns'k dh ewy izfr MkW0 pS=s; dqekj flag] vk;qosZfnd fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh dks gLrxr djk;sA vuqyXud&;FkksDrA g0&vLi"V ljdkj ds lfpo** “Government of Jharkhand Welfare Department File No.-01/04-Ayu.Chi. Stha.-01/2017-2258/ 31.7.17 Order As per guideline of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Government of India, New Delhi given vide Letter No.-14/ 279/ 2002 S.R.(S.) dated 08.06.2006 and pursuant to concurrence of the State of Bihar and Jharkhand, Dr. Chaitraiya Kumar Singh, Ayurvedic Medical Officer is transferred /his cadre is revised to Bihar State upon his request, as a single, vide Notification No.-10416 dated 06.09.2010 of Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar (Annexure-1). Pursuant to the said notification Dr. Chaitraiya Kumar Singh, Ayurvedic Medical Officer is transferred /his cadre is revised to Bihar State upon his request, as a single, vide Notification No.-10416 dated 06.09.2010 of Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar (Annexure-1). Pursuant to the said notification Dr. Chaitraiya Kumar Singh vide his Letter No.- 71/10 dated 06.10.2010 given letter to the Secretary, Welfare Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi for relieving and for joining in the transferred State of Bihar (Annexure-II), but he did not relieve and continue to work in the State of Jharkhand. Dr. Chaitraiya Kumar Singh has filed a W.P.(S) No. 1898/2017 in the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi on 06.04.2017. In the aforesaid writ he has attached following documents:- (I) Request letter for the posting against the vacant post while joining before the Secretary, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna on 20.01.2011 in anticipation of being relieved from the State of Jharkhand (Annexure-III). (II) Copy of joining dated 30.09.2013 given in the State of Bihar in anticipation of being relieved again (Annexure IV). (III) Request letter to remind for relieving from the Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand to the Secretary, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna dated 10.06.2015 (Annexure-V). The application of Dr. Chaitraiya Kumar Singh was rejected vide Memo No.-2066 dated 12.10.2015 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna for not joining in the State of Bihar after being relieved in time from the State of Jharkhand and also due to no vacancy of Ayurvedic Medical Officer (Annexure-VI). Following order has been passed by Hon’ble Court on 18.04.2017 in W.P.(S) No. 1898/2017 in the Hon’ble High Court, Jharkhand, Ranchi:- “Be that as it may, there cannot be an order staying the operation of the Jharkhand Rules to permit the petitioner to continue in service, in anticipation that he may finally succeed. In the event notification dated 06.09.2010 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. In the event notification dated 06.09.2010 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. “Following order has been passed by Hon’ble High Court on 05.07.2017,-” The said Notification dated 06.09.2010 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 when 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 service of the petitioner were retained in the State of Jharkhand even after notification dated 06.09.2010. In the circumstances, I hereby direct the State of Jharkhand to file specific affidavit within a period of one week from today as to why petitioner be not relieved from the service to join State of Bihar. State of Bihar is also directed to confirm the vacancy position”. In the course of compliance of order dated 05.07.2017 and 18.07.2017 passed by Hon’ble High Court, in the context of cadre revision/transfer in the State of Bihar, as a single, vide notification no. 10416 dated 06.09.2010 of Home (Special), Government of Bihar, Dr. Chaitraiya Kumar Singh, Ayurvedic Medical Officer is being relieved with effect from 30.04.2017 i.e. the date of his superannuation, for the State of Bihar. Note:- Let the original copy of this order be served to Dr. Chaitraiya Kumar Singh, Ayurvedic Medical Officer. Encl. :- as above Sd/- Secretary to the Government” 8. On the very next date, upon issue of the relieving order, the writ petitioner had approached the State of Bihar for acceptance of his joining. There was no positive response in that regard from the State of Bihar. On the other hand, on 8th September, 2017, the State of Bihar had passed an order rejecting the writ petitioner’s request for joining. It is this order which has been set aside by the learned First Court along with the order dated 12th October, 2015. There was no positive response in that regard from the State of Bihar. On the other hand, on 8th September, 2017, the State of Bihar had passed an order rejecting the writ petitioner’s request for joining. It is this order which has been set aside by the learned First Court along with the order dated 12th October, 2015. The said order is reproduced below, along with its English version:- **fcgkj ljdkj vuq0 tkfr ,oa vuq0 tutkfr dY;k.k foHkkx vkns’k x`g ¼fo’ks"k½ foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk ds vf/klwpuk la[;k&10416 fnukad 06-09-2010 }kjk Mk0 pS=s; dqekj flag] vk;qosZfnd fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh dks muds vuqjks/k ij ,dy :i ls fcgkj jkT; laoxZ iqujh{k.k@LFkkukarj.k fd;k x;k ¼vuqyXud&1½A mDr vf/klwpuk ds vkyksd esa >kj[kaM ljdkj }kjk lle; Mk0 pS=s; dqekj flag dks fof/kor fojfer ugha fd;k x;k] ftlls Mk0 pS=s; dqekj flag }kjk vius lsokdky esa dHkh Hkh fof/kor fojfer gksdj foHkkx esa ;ksxnku lefiZr ugha fd;k x;kA Mk0 pS=s; dqekj flag] vk;qosZfnd fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh }kjk fojfer gksus dh izR;k’kk esa ;ksxnku Lohd`r djus ,oa >kj[kaM ljdkj dks fojfer djus gsrq vuqjks/k djus laca/kh vH;kosnu lefiZr fd;k x;kA foHkkxh; i=kad&2066 fnukad 12-10-2015 }kjk Mk0 pS=s; dqekj flag ds vH;kosnu dks lle; >kj[kaM jkT; ls fojfer gksdj fcgkj jkT; esa ;ksxnku lefiZr ugha djus ,oa vk;qosZfnd fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh dk in fjDr ugha jgus ds dkj.k vLohd`r fd;k x;k rFkk mDr vk’k; dh lwpuk dY;k.k foHkkx] >kj[kaM] jk¡ph dks lalwfpr dj nh xbZ FkhA ¼vuqyXud&2½A Mk0 pS=s; dqekj flag] vk;qosZfnd fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh }kjk fnukad 06-04-2017 dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] >kj[k.M] jk¡ph esa WP(S) No. 1898/2017 nk;j fd;k x;kA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] >kj[kaM jk¡ph esa WP(S) No. 1898/2017 esa fnukad 05-07-2017 dks ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns’k fuEu izdkj gS& “The said Notification dated 06.09.2010 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 when 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 06.09.2010. 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 06.09.2010. In the circumstances, I hereby direct the State of Jharkhand to file specific affidavit within a period of one week from today as to shy petitioner be not relieved from the service to join State of Bihar, State of Bihar is also directed to confirm the vacancy position.” ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] >kj[kaM] jk¡ph }kjk fnukad 05-07-2017 dks ikfjr vkns’k ds vuqikyu ds dze esa dY;k.k foHkkx] >kj[kaM ljdkj ds vkns’k la[;k&2258 fnuakd 31-07-2017 }kjk MkW0 pS=s; dqekj flag] vk;qosZfnd fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh ¼lEizfr lsokfuo`Rr½ dks mudh lsokfuo`fRr dh frfFk 30-04-2017 ds izHkko ls fnukad 31-07-2017 dks fcgkj jkT; ds fy, fojfer fd;k x;kA mYys[kuh; gS fd MkW0 pS=s; dqekj flag] vk;qosZfnd fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh fnukad 30-04-2017 dks lsokfuo`Rr gks pqds gSaA bl izdkj >kj[kaM ljdkj }kjk MkW0 pS=s; dqekj flag] vk;qosZfnd fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh ¼lEizfr lsokfuo`Rr½ dks Hkwry{kh izHkko ls@lsokfuo`Rr dh frfFk ds izHkko ls fnukad 31-07-2017 dks fojfer fd;k x;k gS ¼vuqyXud 3½A rnksijkUr fnuakd 01-08-2017 dks MkW0 pS=s; dqekj flag] vk;qosZfnd fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh ¼lEizfr lsokfuo`Rr½ }kjk foHkkx esa ;ksxnku lefiZr dj ;ksxnku Lohd`r djus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] >kj[kaM] jk¡ph }kjk fnukad 02-08-2017 dks mDr okn esa fuEu vkns’k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS& Let the State of Bihar file an affidavit as to why they have not accepted the joining of the petitioner, when the petitioner has already approached the Respondent-State of Bihar for acceptance of his joining on 01-08-2017 in pursuant to the courts’ order.” KkrO; gks fd dSMj vkoaVu gsrq ukfer uksMy foHkkx x`g ¼fo’ks"k½ foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk ds vf/klwpuk la[;k&10416 fnukad 06-09-2010 ds vkyksd esa MkW0 pS=s; dqekj flag] vk;qosZfnd fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh dks vkoafVr jkT; esa ;ksxnku djus gsrq vfoyEc fojfer djus dk nkf;Ro >kj[kaM ljdkj dk FkkA vf/klwpuk fuxZr gksus dh frfFk ds yEcs le; ckn rd Jh flag dks >kj[kaM ljdkj }kjk fojfer ugha fd;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa ;g LoHkkfod fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd >kj[kaM ljdkj Jh flag dks fojfer djus esa bPNqd ugha FkhA Qyr% vf/klwpuk la[;k&10416 fnukad 06-09-2010 Jh flag ds >kj[kaM jkT; esa lsokfuo`fr dh frfFk fnukad 30-04-2017 ls izHkkoghu (Ineffective) ekuk tk,xkA blds vfrfjDr lsokfuo`fr ds mijkUr ljdkj ,oa deZpkjh ds chp Lokeh ,oa lsod dk laca/k Lor% lekIr gks tkrk gS] vr% lsokfuo`fr ds mijkUr fdlh deZpkjh dks Hkwry{kh izHkko ls fdlh nwljs jkT; esa ;ksxnku djus gsrq fojfer fd;k tkuk fdlh :i esa fof/k lEer ugha ekuk tk ldrkA bl laca/k esa dkfeZd] yksd f’kdk;r ,oa isa’ku ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj dk i= fnukad 07-06-2012 dh dafMdk&2 esa dkfeZdksa ds lsokfuo`r vFkok muds vkdfLed fu/ku ij jkT; vkoaVu@iqujkoaVu ds laca/k esa Li"V mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd ^^,sls ekeyksa esa dkfeZdksa dks iqu% vkoaVu ogh jkT; ekuk tk,xk ftl jkT; ds dkfeZd lsokfuo`r okys fnol dk;Zjr Fks vFkok ml jkT; esa lsok ds nkSjku mldh e`R;q gqbZ vFkkZr mldk vafre lsok fnol ftl jkT; ljdkj dh lsok esa xqtjk gS ogh mldks vkoafVr ekuk tk,xkA foRrh; ykHkksa rFkk lsokfuo`Rr ykHkksa dk ogu ogh jkT; ljdkj djsxh tgk¡ dkfeZd dk vafre lsok fnol xqtjk gksA^^ ¼vuqyXud&4½A lkFk gh mYys[kuh; gS fd foHkkx ds fu;a=.kk/khu vk;qosZfnd fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh ds 10 in Lohd`r gS] rFkk orZeku esa 10 inksa ds fo:) 10 vk;qosZfnd fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh dk;Zjr gSaA MkW0 pS=s; dqekj flag] vk;qosZfnd inkf/kdkjh ¼lEizfr lsokfuo`r½ }kjk fnuakd 01-08-2017 dks x`g ¼fo’ks"k½ foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk ds vf/klwpuk la[;k&10416 fnukad 06-09-2010 ds vkyksd esa fcgkj jkT; laoxZ iqujh{k.k@LFkkukarj.k gksus ds yxHkx 7 o"kksZa ds i’pkr~ dY;k.k foHkkx] >kj[kaM ljdkj ds vkns’k la[;k&2258 fnukad&31-07-2017 ds vkyksd esa lsokfuo`r dh frfFk 30-04-2017 ds izHkko ls fojfer gksus ds mijkar ;ksxnku lefiZr fd;k x;k gS] tcfd foHkkx eas vk;qosZfnd fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh dk dksbZ Hkh in fjDr ugha gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa MkW0 pS=s; dqekj flag] vk;qosZfnd fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh] tks fnukad 30-04-2017 dks lsokfuo`r gks pqds gSa vkSj dY;k.k foHkkx] >kj[kaM ljdkj }kjk lsokfuo`r ds i'pkr~ fnukad&31-07-2017 dks Hkqry{kh izHkko ls fnukad&30-04-2017 ds izHkko ls fojfer fd;k x;k gS] dk ;ksxnku Lohd`r fd;k tkuk fu;ekuqdwy ,oa fof/k;qDr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA vr,o mijksDr of.kZr fLFkfr esa MkW0 pS=s; dqekj flag] vk;qosZfnd fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh ¼lEizfr fnukad 30-04-2017 dks lsokfuo`r½ }kjk fnukad 01-08-2017 dks ;ksxnku Lohd`r djus laca/kh fn;s x;s vH;kosnu dks vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA uksV&vkns’k dh ewy izfr MkW0 pS=s; dqekj flag] vk;qosZfnd fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh ¼lEizfr lsokfuo`r½ gks gLrxr djk;sA g0@& ¼izse flag eh.kk½ Lkjdkj ds lfpo** “Government of Bihar Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department Order Vide Notification No.-10416 dated 06.09.2010 of Home (Special) Department, Bihar, Patna, revision/transfer of Bihar State Cadre has been done to Dr. Chaitraiy Kumar Singh, Ayurvedic Medical Officer, upon his request, as a single (Annexure-I). Pursuant to the said notification, Dr. Chaitraiy Kumar Singh has not been relieved in time, as per law, by the Government of Jharkhand, due to which Dr. Chaitraiy Kumar Singh did not ever submit his joining during his service period after being relieved as per law. Dr. Chaitaiy Kumar Singh, Ayurvedic Medical Officer submitted application for making request to the Government of Jharkhand for relieving him and also for accepting the joining in anticipation of being relieved. The application of Dr. Chaitraiy Kumar Singh was rejected vide Departmental Letter No.2066 dated 12.10.2015 for not joining in the State of Bihar after being relieved in time from the State of Jharkhand and also due to there being no vacancy of Ayurvedic Medical Officer; and information to the said effect had been communicated to the Welfare Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi (Annexure-II). Dr. Chaitraiy Kumar Singh, Ayurvedic Medical Officer filed W.P.(S.) No.1898/2017 before Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi on 06.04.2017. The order dated 05.07.2017 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi in W.P. (S) No. 1898/2017 is as follows:- “The said Notification dated 06.09.2010 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 when 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 06.09.2010. In the circumstances, I hereby direct the State of Jharkhand to file specific affidavit within a period of one week from today as to why petitioner be not relieved from the services to join State of Bihar. State of Bihar is also directed to confirm the vacancy position”. In the course of compliance of order dated 05.07.2017 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Dr. Chaitraiy Kumar Singh, Ayurvedic Medical Officer (at present superannuated) has been relieved on 31.07.2017 with effect from 30.04.2017 for the State of Bihar vide Order No.-2258 dated-31.07.2017 of the Government of Jharkhand. In the course of compliance of order dated 05.07.2017 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Dr. Chaitraiy Kumar Singh, Ayurvedic Medical Officer (at present superannuated) has been relieved on 31.07.2017 with effect from 30.04.2017 for the State of Bihar vide Order No.-2258 dated-31.07.2017 of the Government of Jharkhand. It is pertinent to mention here that Dr. Chaitraiy Kumar Singh, Ayurvedic Medical Officer has been superannuated on 30.04.2017. Thus, Dr. Chaitraiy Kumar Singh, Ayurvedic Medical Officer (at present superannuated) has been relieved on 31.07.2017 with retrospective effect/from the date of superannuation(Anx. III). Thereafter, Dr. Chaitraiy Kumar Singh, Ayurvedic Medical Officer (at present superannuated) by submitting his joining on 01.08.2017 in the Department prayed to accept his joining. Following order has been passed by Hon’ble High Court, Jharkhand, Ranchi in the aforesaid case on 02.08.2017- “Let the State of Bihar file an affidavit as to why they have not accepted the joining of the petitioner, when the petitioner has already approached the respondent-State of Bihar for acceptance of his joining on 01.08.2017 in pursuant to the Court’s order.” As it is known that as per Notification No. 10416 dated- 06.09.2010 of Home (Special) Department, Bihar, Patna, the nominated Nodal Department for cadre allocation, it was the responsibility of Government of Jharkhand to immediately relieve Dr. Chaitraiy Kumar Singh, Ayurvedic Medical Officer for joining in the allocated State. In the event of not being relieved by the Government of Jharkhand even after expiry of long period of time after the date of issue of notification, it was natural conclusion that the Government of Jharkhand was not willing to relieve Sri Singh. Resultantly, Notification No. 10416 dated- 06.09.2010 shall be deemed ineffective with effect from dated- 30.04.2017, the date of superannuation in the State of Jharkhand. In addition to this, the relation of master and servant between the Government and employee automatically ceased to exist after the superannuation. Therefore, to relieve an employee with retrospective effect for joining in another State after superannuation may not be deemed lawful anyway. In addition to this, the relation of master and servant between the Government and employee automatically ceased to exist after the superannuation. Therefore, to relieve an employee with retrospective effect for joining in another State after superannuation may not be deemed lawful anyway. In this regard, with respect to State allocation/re-allocation in the event of sudden death or retirement of employees, it has been clearly mentioned at para-2 in Letter dated-07.06.2012 of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Government of India that “In such cases, the re-allocation of employees shall be deemed to be the said State, where (in which State) the employee was working on the day of superannuation or he died in that State during his service i.e., he shall be deemed to have been allocated (State), where his last working day is spent in the service. The said State shall bear the expenses of financial benefits and retiral benefit where the employee’s last working day spent (Annexure-IV). It is also pertinent that there are 10 sanctioned posts of Ayurvedic Medical Officer under control of the department and at present 10 Ayurvedic Medical Officer are working against 10 sanctioned posts. In view of notification no.10416 dated 06.09.2010 of the Department of Home (Special), Bihar, Patna and after 7 years of Bihar State cadre revision/transfer and in view of order no. 2258 dated 31.07.2017 of Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, Dr. Chaitraya Kumar Singh, Ayurvedic Medical Officer (At present superannuated) submitted his joining on 01.08.2017 with effect from his date of superannuation 30.04.2017 and after being relived, whereas no vacant post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer is available in the department. In such circumstances, it appears that acceptance of joining of Dr. Chaitraya Kumar Singh, Ayurvedic Medical Officer who retired on 30.04.2017 and relived on 31.07.2017 after his retirement from the Department of Welfare, Government of Jharkhand with retrospective effect 30.04.2017 is not as per rule and law. Therefore, in the aforementioned circumstances, the application dated-01.08.2017 submitted for accepting the joining by Dr. Chaitraya Kumar Singh, Ayurviedic Medical Officer (at present superannuated on 30.04.2017) is rejected. Note-Let the original copy of Order be served to Dr. Chaitraya Kumar Singh, Ayurvedic Medical Officer (at present superannuated). Sd/- (Prem Singh Meena) Secretary to the Government” 9. On 18th December, 2017, the learned First Court granted relief to the writ petitioner disposing of his writ application, inter-alia, holding :- “12. Note-Let the original copy of Order be served to Dr. Chaitraya Kumar Singh, Ayurvedic Medical Officer (at present superannuated). Sd/- (Prem Singh Meena) Secretary to the Government” 9. On 18th December, 2017, the learned First Court granted relief to the writ petitioner disposing of his writ application, inter-alia, holding :- “12. From perusal of record, it appears that after order of this Court dated 05.07.2017, petitioner had been relieved from the State of Jharkhand vide order dated 31.07.2017. Thereafter, petitioner approached before the State of Bihar for acceptance of his joining on 01.08.2017 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 02.08.2017, a reasoned order has been passed by this Department vide Memo No. 2311, dated 08.09.2017, whereby and whereunder the representation submitted by the petitioner on 01.08.2017 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 06.09.2010 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 08.09.2017, it has been mentioned that petitioner superannuated on 30.04.2017 and relieved from the State of Jharkhand on 31.07.2017 with effect from 30.04.2017 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. 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 08.09.2017 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents – State of Bihar is directed to take 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.” 10. Appearing for the State of Bihar, Mr. S.P. Roy, learned Advocate, has mainly argued for invalidation of the judgment and order of the learned First Court on the ground of delay. It is also his submission that on the respondent writ petitioner’s superannuation on 30th April, 2017, there was severance of master–servant relationship and the relieving order of the Jharkhand Government could not be given effect to as the writ petitioner sought engagement or allocation as an existing employee. The memorandum issued by the Central Government on 7th June, 2012 was also referred to by him in support of his contention that since the writ petitioner had superannuated after serving the State of Jharkhand, it would be deemed that he had been allocated to the State of Jharkhand. The memorandum issued by the Central Government on 7th June, 2012 was also referred to by him in support of his contention that since the writ petitioner had superannuated after serving the State of Jharkhand, it would be deemed that he had been allocated to the State of Jharkhand. This memorandum records:- **Qk-l- 14@17@04&,l-vkj-¼,l-½ ¼Hkkx&2½ Hkkjr ljdkj dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r ,oa isa'ku ea=ky;] dkfeZd ,oa izf'k{k.k foHkkx r`rh; ry] yksduk;d Hkou [kku ekdsZV] ubZ fnYyh&110003 fnukad 7 twu] 2012 izfr eq[; lfpo] fcgkj ljdkj] iVuk] fcgkjA eq[; lfpo] >kj[kaM ljdkj] jkaph] >kj[kaMA fo"k;% dkfeZdksa ds lsokfuo`r vFkok muds vkdfLed fu/ku ij jkT; vkoaVu@iqujkoaVu&Li"Vhdj.k ds ckcrA egksn;] iqu% jkT; vkoaVu laca/kh dqN ,sls ekeys Hkkjr ljdkj ds laKku esa vk;s gSa ftuesa dkfeZdksa dh ;k rks e`R;q gks x;h gS vFkok os lsokfuo`r gks pqds gSaA muds iqu% jkT; vkoaVu ds ekeys ;k rks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa fopkj/kkhu gSa vFkok ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;ksa ds vkns'kksa ds vuqikyu esa vH;kosnu ij iqu% fopkj ds dkj.k yafcr gSA 2- bl lEca/k esa ;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd ,sls ekeyksa esa dkfeZdksa dks iqu% vkoaVu ogh jkT; ekuk tk,xk ftl jkT; ds dkfeZd lsokfuo`r okys fnol dk;Zjr Fks vFkok ml jkT; esa lsok ds nkSjku mldh e`R;q gqbZ vFkkZr mldk vafre lsok fnol ftl jkT; ljdkj dh lsok esa xqtjk gS ogh mldks vkoafVr ekuk tk,xkA foRrh; ykHkksa rFkk lsokfuo`r ykHkksa dk ogu ogh jkT; ljdkj djsxh tgk¡ dkfeZd dk vafre lsok fnol xqtjk gksA Hkonh; ¼ds-fi-ds- uafc’ku½ mi lfpo nwjHkk”k&01124623711 “Fa. No. 14/17/04-S.R.(S)(Part-2) Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension Department of Personnel and Training 3rd Floor, Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi-110003 Dated, 7th June, 2012 Copy to: The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna, Bihar The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Jharkhand Sub-Reg. clarification with respect to allocation/re-allocation of State upon retirement or sudden death of the employees. Sir, Some such cases have come in the cognizance of Government of India regarding State re-allocation in which the employees have either died or retired. Their cases related to reallocation of State is either pending in Hon’ble High Court or it is pending for re-consideration upon their representation in compliance of orders of Hon’ble High Courts. 2. Sir, Some such cases have come in the cognizance of Government of India regarding State re-allocation in which the employees have either died or retired. Their cases related to reallocation of State is either pending in Hon’ble High Court or it is pending for re-consideration upon their representation in compliance of orders of Hon’ble High Courts. 2. In this regard it is made clear that in such cases the reallocation of employees shall be deemed that State in which the employees were working on the day of retirement or they died during the service of the said State or his last working day spent in the service of the that State Government, the said State shall be deemed allocated to them. Such State Government shall bear the expenses of Financial benefits and retiral benefits where the employees have spent his last working day. Yours faithfully Sd/- (K.P.K. Nambition) Deputy Secretary” Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, learned Advocate for the State of Jharkhand, has sought to support the relieve order. 11. Mr. Manoj Tandon has appeared on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioner and his stand is that the superannuation of writ petitioner cannot be a ground for rejection of his claim as in the order passed on 18th April, 2017, it was emphasised that in the event the notification dated 6th September, 2010 is held legal and valid, writ petitioner’s retirement from service under the State of Jharkhand shall not be an impediment in permitting him to join the State of Bihar. On the question of delay his submission is that the writ petitioner had gone on making representations and ultimately his stand was upheld as the State of Jharkhand had passed the relieving order. That relieving order dated 31st July, 2017 vindicated his stand and the sole ground for resisting his allocation to the State of Bihar had collapsed with that order. 12. It is a fact that the writ petitioner had approached the Court seven years after issue of the notification dated 6th September, 2010. That notification is not under challenge. No point on validity of that notification has been raised either by the State of Bihar or by the State of Jharkhand. 12. It is a fact that the writ petitioner had approached the Court seven years after issue of the notification dated 6th September, 2010. That notification is not under challenge. No point on validity of that notification has been raised either by the State of Bihar or by the State of Jharkhand. In the order of 8th September, 2017, the issuing authority has sought to come to a unilateral finding that the order of 6th September, 2010 ought to have had been deemed to be ineffective by virtue of the fact that the writ petitioner was not being relieved by the Jharkhand Government. We are unable to accept this stand. An instrument emanating from a legitimate source cannot be rendered ineffective simply because the authorities do not give effect to it. In both the interim orders passed on 8th April, 2017 and 5th July, 2017, subsistence of the order of 6th September, 2010 stood recognized. There was no subsequent order or notification by which that order (6th September, 2010) could be held to have been superseded expressly or by implication. The appellant is seeking to kill the said order merely because of its breach by another State, i.e. the State of Jharkhand. This is a fallacious stand on the part of the appellant. 13. The question of delay would not be of great significance in the case of the writ petitioner though he had approached the Court after about seven years from initial accrual of cause of action in the year 2010. In the interim period, he claims to have had been pursuing his case through representations. Though the law of limitation does not strictly apply to writ proceedings, a claimant would have to bring an action within a reasonable time from the date cause of action arises. By that yardstick, the writ petitioner might have had disentitled himself from getting discretionary relief under the writ jurisdiction. But in this case, the authorities of the State of Jharkhand themselves have accepted the plea of the writ petitioner for being relieved to join the State of Bihar during pendency of the writ petition. There is no explanation from the State of Jharkhand as to why the order for relieving the writ petitioner was kept pending since the year 2010. There is no explanation from the State of Jharkhand as to why the order for relieving the writ petitioner was kept pending since the year 2010. On the other hand, the State of Jharkhand has actually acted upon the memorandum dated 6th September, 2010 in issuing the order of 31st July, 2017. This factor justifies the writ petitioner’s claim for being relieved, which he had been raising all along. Since the Jharkhand State authorities themselves have accepted the writ petitioner’s right to be relieved in terms of the order dated 6th September, 2010, the writ petitioner cannot be nonsuited on the ground of unreasonable delay. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar also sought to attribute elements of opportunism on the part of the writ petitioner as he had approached the Court after the retirement age for similarly situated employees in the State of Bihar was enhanced. But as we have already observed, the writ petitioner’s claim is founded on the order dated 6th September, 2010. There are sufficient materials to demonstrate that he was actively pursuing the case for his allocation to the State of Bihar since then. Thus the mere fact that he had approached the Court after the retirement age was enhanced in Bihar cannot be a reason for defeating his claim, which stands recognized in the order dated 6th September, 2010. 14. Next comes the question of relief. The learned First Court has quashed the two notifications by which his claim was rejected by the appellant–State of Bihar. The first order was issued on 12th October, 2015. Two main reasons cited for rejection in this order are non-availability of the relieving order from the State of Jharkhand and lack of vacancy in the posts of Ayurvedic Medical Officer. The memorandum of 8th September, 2017 was issued after the authorities of Jharkhand issued the relieving order. The reason for rejection contained in this order is that the relieving order had been issued with effect from the date of superannuation of the writ petitioner and post-superannuation, his joining would not be acceptable in law. Non-availability of vacancy was also cited in this rejection order. 15. The writ petitioner’s main plea was for allocation of his service in the Bihar cadre after formation of the State of Jharkhand in accordance with the provisions of the 2000 Act. Non-availability of vacancy was also cited in this rejection order. 15. The writ petitioner’s main plea was for allocation of his service in the Bihar cadre after formation of the State of Jharkhand in accordance with the provisions of the 2000 Act. His claim, if it was accepted at the time of issue of memorandum of 6th September, 2010, he would have been in service now in the State of Bihar. But upon attaining the age of superannuation in the State of Jharkhand, there has been severance of master– servant relationship so far as the writ petitioner is concerned. Now can he be allocated a post in Bihar as part of the same service? Mr. Tandon has drawn our attention to the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge on 18th April, 2017 and 5th July, 2017 and has submitted that the said orders preserved the right of the writ petitioner to be allocated service in Bihar and this eventuality, i.e. his superannuation had been taken into account by the learned Single Judge. We find strength in this argument as neither the State of Bihar nor the State of Jharkhand filed any appeal against those interim orders. The said orders, though interim in nature, have binding effect on both the States so far as grant of relief to the writ petitioner is concerned. In the order passed on 5th July, 2017, the submission on behalf of the State of Jharkhand that the writ petition had become infructuous for this reason was not accepted by the learned Single Judge. The writ petitioner’s right for allocation even after his superannuation was specifically preserved by the Court. In this factual and legal context, right of the writ petitioner to be in service in the State of Bihar where the superannuation age is 67 years cannot be held to have lapsed for this reason alone. The aforesaid two interim orders also insulate the writ petitioner from the impact of the memorandum issued by the Central Government on 7th June, 2012. That memorandum, which is general in nature, cannot have application in the facts of this case, where a subsisting order of allocation remained breached for a long period of time and was ultimately accepted by the successor State which was withholding its application. That memorandum, which is general in nature, cannot have application in the facts of this case, where a subsisting order of allocation remained breached for a long period of time and was ultimately accepted by the successor State which was withholding its application. This was a case where the factum of superannuation stood qualified by unchallenged judicial order in the manner we have discussed earlier in this judgment. Thus we do not find any fault in the judgment of the learned First Court in quashing the two orders dated 12th October, 2015 and 8th September, 2017. 17. On the question of there being no vacancy in the said posts in the State of Bihar, the writ petitioner has contested this stand. The respective pleas of the appellant and the writ petitioner on this point generates a factual dispute. The learned First Court, however, has not issued any mandatory direction upon the appellant in the judgment under appeal. The appellant has been directed to take a final decision for acceptance of joining of the writ petitioner. For this reason, we do not consider it necessary to adjudicate on this particular aspect of the dispute. That can be examined by the authorities concerned at the time final decision is taken. We, however, modify the order of the learned First Court and direct that the writ petitioner ought to be heard at the time such decision is taken. We also extend the time for taking final decision by ten weeks from the date this judgment and the order is communicated to the appellant. 18. The appeal is accordingly dismissed subject to the modification of the judgment of the learned First Court as indicated in the preceding paragraph. The connected applications (I. A. Nos. 3575 and 7191 of 2018) shall also stand disposed of. 19. There shall be no order as to costs.