AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.—Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondents.
Relying upon the order dated 2.7.2003 passed in the earlier writ petition namely WS(S) No. 5849 of 2002 filed by one of their colleagues, namely, Muzaffar Alam, the petitioners herein have field this writ petition praying for issuance of a direction to the respondents to pay the petitioners their salary which has been withheld for the past six years.
From the facts stated, it appears that the petitioners are employees of BISCOMAUN and their services were engaged in various branches of BISCOMAUN situated within the State of Jharkhand. After bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the petitioners continued to remain in service in the same place of posting within the State of Jharkhand. The services of such employees in the state of Jharkhand, altogether 240 in number, had to be continued in order to maintain co-operative Societies and other branches of the BISCOMAUN in the State of Jharkhand.
It appears that one of such employees namely Muzaffar Alam, who was a Salesman cum Accounts Clerk in one of the branches at Hazaribagh, had filed a writ petition before this Court praying for issuance of a direction to the State of Jharkhand to rehabilitate him under the services of the State of Jharkhand. The claim was advanced particularly on the ground that the State of Jharkhand had absorbed the services of one of the erstwhile employees of BISCOMAUN in the Governor''s Secretariat and similar benefits ought to have been given to him also. It appears that upon considering the rival submissions, this Court had observed that the ground of posting one such employee in the Governor''s Secretariat could be for various reasons and cannot necessarily be claimed as a ground for issuance of a direction to absorb the writ petitioner and the other employees of BISCOMAUN.
From the counter affidavit of the respondents, the stand taken is that the petitioners are admittedly the employees of the BISCOMAUN which is an independent autonomous Body. Upon bifurcation of the erstwhile state of Bihar, the assets and liabilities of only such Government Bodies could be divided as are mentioned in the list in Schedule IX as per the provisions of Section 65 of the Bihar Re-organization Act. The name of BISCOMAUN does not find mention in the aforesaid Schedule and as such the assets and liabilities of BISCOMAUN cannot be divided between the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand. Further stand of the respondents is that though in the order passed in the earlier writ petition, a direction was given to the respondent State of Jharkhand to consider the representation of the employees of BISCOMAUN working in the State of Jharkhand and to take a decision for their rehabilitation under the State of Jharkhand, but in absence of any policy decision taken by the State Government to constitute a separate Corporation similar to BISCOMAUN, no decision for rehabilitating the employees of the BISCOMAUN could be taken. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners being essentially employees of BISCOMAN and even if they are continuing in service in the various Branches of the BISCOMAUN situated in the State of Jharkhand, the liability to pay salary/ wages to such employees rests entirely and exclusively upon the BISCOMAUN and upon the State of Bihar.
In the light of these facts explained by the counsel for the respondents, I find force in the arguments made on behalf of the respondents. Even though in the order passed in the earlier writ petition, a direction was given to the respondent State of Jharkhand to consider the representation of the writ petitioner and to pass an appropriate order on the issue relating to rehabilitation, but the concerned authorities of the State Government after having considered and passed a reasoned order rejecting the prayer, no further obligation was imposed upon the State Government.
As it appears, the petitioners are exclusively the employees of BISCOMAUN and at no point of time, has the State Government of Jharkhand owed the responsibilities on their behalf. As it appears, the State Government has not taken any policy decision for forming any such corporation similar to BISCOMAUN or for rehabilitation of the employees of the BISCOMAUN. The petitioners being in service under BISCOMAUN, can claim their payment of salary only from BISCOMAUN or from the State of Bihar.
Considering the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.