JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition in under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus has been sought for, to pay the admitted dues of the writ petitioner, amounting to Rs.4,56,358.16 being the amount due to the writ petitioner towards transportation-cum-handling charges. 2. The fact leading to this case as would appear from the pleading made in the writ petition is that the writ petitioner was registered with the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited before its bifurcation to perform as a transporter-cum-handling agent in the district of Palamau, accordingly, the work order had been issued in favour of the writ petitioner from time to time by the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited for transportation and handling of food grains. 3. The writ petitioner had been allotted with the work for the years 2000-01 and 2001-02. The writ petitioner performed the work and accordingly submitted the bills for its onward disbursement of the amount but in the meanwhile Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 came into being, in consequence thereof, erstwhile Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited has been bifurcated into two institutions, i.e., existing Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. 4. The claim of the writ petitioner although has not been disputed but the liability has been disputed as to whether it will be paid by the Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited or existing Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, in view thereof, the amount in favour of the writ petitioner could not be paid which led the writ petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for filing the instant writ petition. 5. Affidavits have been filed by the existing Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited as also by the Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited denying their liability. 5. Affidavits have been filed by the existing Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited as also by the Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited denying their liability. On the one hand the stand of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited as per the pleading is that it is not the liability of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited rather it is the liability of the Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited in view of the decision as contained in Circular No.389 dated 04.02.2016 whereby and whereunder it has been agreed in between both the corporations, i.e., Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited that whatever liability is on or before 14.11.2000 the same will be of the existing Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and after 14.11.2000, the liability will be of the Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited 6. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited submitted on the strength of the stand taken in the counter affidavit that as per the directives of the State Government through the department of Food and Civil Supplies, the Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited is only required to pay the retiral dues of the employees who have retired from the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand, save and except the retiral dues, the other benefits are not the liability of the Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, as such, he has insisted upon the Court to call upon the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department to accept the liability or issue appropriate order upon the Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited for the disbursement of the amount as has been claimed by the writ petitioner. 7. On the other hand, Mr. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel for the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited submits that the claim cannot be disputed on behalf of the existing Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited if the claim pertains to on or before 14.11.2000 as per the consensus decision taken by both the Corporations as contained in Circular No.389 dated 04.02.2016, but, according to him, here the work commenced in the financial years 2000-01 and 2001-02. He further submits that so far as the claim of the writ petitioner for the financial year 2001-02 is concerned, the claim cannot be disputed by the Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited as per the decision arrived at in between these two corporations as under Circular No.389 dated 04.02.2016. He, however, in all fairness has submitted that so far as the claim of the writ petitioner which pertains to financial year 2000-01 is concerned, it requires verification/scrutiny as to whether the work has been performed after 14.11.2000 or it is prior to 14.11.2000 and if it is found that the transportation work pertains prior to 14.11.2000 certainly, the liability would be upon the existing Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited but if it is found that the transportation work for which the money has been claimed for the financial year 2000- 01, i.e., after 14.11.2000, then the liability will be upon the Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. 8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. This Court has considered the pleading as also the annexure appended to the writ petition as also the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respective parties. The fact which is not in dispute in this case is that by virtue of the effect of Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, two successor States have emerged after bifurcation of the State of Bihar, i.e., successor State of Bihar and successor State of Jharkhand. The fact which is not in dispute in this case is that by virtue of the effect of Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, two successor States have emerged after bifurcation of the State of Bihar, i.e., successor State of Bihar and successor State of Jharkhand. In the erstwhile State of Bihar there is a corporation in the name and style of “Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited” but due to the effect of Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, since the erstwhile State of Bihar has been bifurcated into two successor States, consequence of which the erstwhile Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited has also been bifurcated into two institutions, i.e., Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. Unfortunate part of the writ petitioner is that he has been allotted work for the financial years 2000-01 and 2001-02 but in the meanwhile the corporation itself has been bifurcated into two corporations, i.e., Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and therefore, whatever bills have been submitted for execution of the work in pursuance of the valid work order, the claim has been disputed by the corporations by shifting their liabilities and thereby the writ petition has been filed. 9. This Court, has perused the decision being the effect of bifurcation of the corporation as contained in Circular No.389 dated 04.02.2016 as per which consensus decision has been arrived at as would be evident from paragraphs-3 and 5 of the said circular. 9. This Court, has perused the decision being the effect of bifurcation of the corporation as contained in Circular No.389 dated 04.02.2016 as per which consensus decision has been arrived at as would be evident from paragraphs-3 and 5 of the said circular. For ready reference, the same is being referred hereinbelow: ^^3- x`g ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk fnukad 16-12-2005 dks tkjh vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa fnukad 14-11-2000 dk cSysal 'khV ,oa ÁksfQV ,.M ykWl (Profit & Loss) ,dkmUV rS;kj fd;k x;kA vf/klwpuk esa fu/kkZfjr ekin.M ds vuqlkj vpy lEifr dk c¡Vokjk “As is Where is” ds vk/kkj ij ,oa vU; py lEifr;ksa ,oa nsunkfj;ksa dk c¡Vokjk 3%1 ds vk/kkj ij fd;s tkus dk mYys[k gSA mDr vk/kkj ij >kj[k.M jkT; ds fgLls dk nkf;Ro 112-66 djksM+ :i;s ,oa vkfLr 70-71 djksM+ :i;s gSA rnuqlkj >kj[k.M jkT; ds vkfLr dk lek;kstu nkf;Ùoksa ls djus ds i'pkr~ 41-95 djksM+ :i;s ds Hkqxrku ds laca/k esa fcgkj jkT; [kk| ,oa vlSfud vkiwfrZ fuxe fyfeVsM ds vkfLr;ksa ,oa nkf;Ùoksa ds c¡Vokjk gsrq nksuksa jkT; ds inkf/kdkfj;ksa ds chp fnukad 15-01-2016 dks fcgkj] iVuk esa vkgwr cSBd esa 41-95 djksM+ :i;s dk nkf;Ùo Hkkj >kj[k.M ljdkj }kjk fcgkj ljdkj dks nsus ij lgefr cuh gSA 5- fcgkj jkT; [kk| ,oa vlSfud vkiwfrZ fuxe fyfeVsM ds foÙkh; vkfLr;ksa ,oa nkf;Roksa ds c¡Vokjs ds Øe esa uo l`ftr >kj[k.M jkT; [kk| ,oa vlSfud vkiwfrZ fuxe dks 41-95 djksM+ :i;s ds nkf;Ùo Hkkj dk ogu >kj[k.M ljdkj }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA ;g jkf'k >kj[k.M jkT; [kk| ,oa vlSfud vkiwfrZ fuxe fyfeVsM] jk¡ph dks miyC/k djk;h tk;sxh ,oa fuxe bls fcgkj jkT; [kk| ,oa vlSfud vkiwfrZ fuxe fyfeVsM@fcgkj ljdkj dks miyC/k djk;sxhA ;g jkf'k r`rh; vuqiwjd ds ek/;e ls ;kstuk en ds eq[;'kh"kZ&3456&flfoy iwfrZ&00&190&lkoZtfud {ks= ds rFkk vU; miØeksa dks lgk;rk mi'kh"kZ ls >kj[k.M jkT; [kk| ,oa vlSfud vkiwfrZ fuxe fyfeVsM }kjk fcgkj jkT; [kk| ,oa vlSfud vkiwfrZ fuxe fyfeVM dks ,deq'r jkf'k miyC/k djkuk&0679&ls fd;k tk;sxkA** 10. Thus, it is evident by going through the stipulation made at paragraphs-3 and 5 of the Circular No.389 dated 04.02.2016 that a consensus decision of fixing of cut-off date has been arrived at by which the cut-off date of 14.11.2000 has been fixed for apportionment of the liability between the two corporations. Thus, it is evident by going through the stipulation made at paragraphs-3 and 5 of the Circular No.389 dated 04.02.2016 that a consensus decision of fixing of cut-off date has been arrived at by which the cut-off date of 14.11.2000 has been fixed for apportionment of the liability between the two corporations. It is not in dispute that the claim of the writ petitioner has also become the liability of the corporation since the claimed amount has not been paid as on 14.11.2000. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid circular that whatever the liability is on or before 14.11.2000 the agreement has been arrived at in between two corporations that the aforesaid liability prior to 14.11.200 will be borne by the existing Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. The normal corollary would be that after 14.11.2000 as per the circular no.389 dated 04.02.2016 the liability will be upon the Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. This factual aspect has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the parties since the same is based upon the Circular No.389 dated 04.02.2016. 11. This Court, on the basis of the aforesaid decision and agreement arrived at in between both the corporations, is now proceeding to examine the fact of the given case. The undisputed case of the writ petitioner is that the work has been allotted for the financial years 2000-01 and 2001-02. So far as the work performed in the financial year 2001-02 is concerned, there is no dispute as per the decision as contained in Circular No.389 dated 04.02.2016 as quoted and referred hereinabove that the aforesaid liability will be upon the Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, therefore, whatever claim which pertains to financial year 2001- 02 is to be borne by the Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited but so far as the claim which pertains to the financial year 2000-01 is concerned, it certainly requires scrutiny for the purpose that whatever the work performed and the money claimed in lieu thereof is on or before 14.11.2000 or after 14.11.2000, 12. The argument advanced by Dr. The argument advanced by Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, that due to the embargo put by the concerned department of the State of Jharkhand for only disbursement of retiral dues, the Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited is not in a position to accept the said liability for disbursement in favour of the writ petitioner, but we are not impressed with such submission, it is for the reason that once circular No. 389 dated 04.02.2016 has been arrived at accepting the liability after 14.11.2000, there cannot be any addition by the concerned department of not releasing the claim by denying the liability. Further, even in the said circular the question of pensionery benefit has been decided to be paid but the said circular does not stipulate that other legal liability as per Circular No.389 dated 04.02.2016 will be denied by the Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. The circular No.389 dated 04.02.2016, being a circular by way of executive instruction, binds the concerned department of the State of Jharkhand and, therefore, the said submission to that effect, as has been made by Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, is hereby rejected. 13. therefore, this Court on the basis of the facts as discussed hereinabove, is hereby passing the following directions: (i) The Chairman/Managing Director, Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited is hereby directed to disburse the claim in favour of the writ petitioner pertaining to the financial year 2001-02 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. (ii) So far as the claim which pertains to the financial year 2000-01 is concerned, the liberty is being given to the writ petitioner to make the claim by giving all details like the work order and other supported documents to establish his claim and the liability as to whether it is upon the Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited or Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, i.e, for its examination by the concerned corporation to scrutinize as to whether the said work is prior to 14.11.2000 or after 14.11.2000. If such representation will be filed by the writ petitioner before the Managing Director of both the corporations within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. If such representation will be filed by the writ petitioner before the Managing Director of both the corporations within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Both the Managing Directors of both the corporations will examine the claim by ascertaining the fact as to whether it is prior to 14.11.2000 or after 14.11.2000. If the conclusion will be arrived at that the claim which is being sought for by the writ petitioner is prior to 14.11.2000 the amount claimed shall be disbursed by the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited within a period of three months from the date of such decision. However, if it is found that the claim of the writ petitioner is after 14.11.2000 then the liability would be upon the Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and the admitted claimed amount shall be paid in favour of the writ petitioner by the Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited within a period of three months. 14. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.