Maharani Soren and Others vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

D.G.R. Patnaik, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

The petitioners in this writ application, have challenged the impugned orders (Annexures-5, 7, 8 and 9) passed by the Respondent No. 2, whereby the order under which the petitioners, who were earlier working under the erstwhile unified State of Bihar and later, were allotted the Jharkhand cadre, was subsequently cancelled.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners originally belong to the State of Jharkhand and they were earlier employed in the Bihar Legislative Council. Upon re-organisation of the State of Bihar, the petitioners had submitted their options for allocation of the Jharkhand cadre. Their prayer was allowed whereafter they were allocated the Jharkhand cadre, but subsequently by the impugned orders, their earlier allotment of the Jharkhand cadre has been cancelled by the State of Jharkhand and they have been reverted to the State of Bihar on the ground that there being no Legislative Council in the State of Jharkhand, the petitioners cannot be accommodated in the State of Jharkhand. Learned Counsel submits that the aforesaid ground is patently misconceived and misleading and contrary to the provisions of the State Re-organization Act. Learned Counsel explains that under the State Re-organization Act, there is no such Policy Guideline or Rule, which lays down that upon the allotment of the State cadre, the Government servants working in one Department should be accommodated in the corresponding same department in the other State.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent-State of Jharkhand and the Respondent-State of Bihar raise a preliminary issue as to whether the instant writ application is maintainable in view of the admitted fact that upon the reversion of the petitioners, they have joined their respective posts in the State of Bihar and as such, they cannot file this writ application in this Court.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners refutes to the aforesaid contention stating that the challenge in this writ application is to the orders, passed by the State of Jharkhand, whereby the services of the petitioners have been returned to the State of Bihar.

The further stand taken by the Respondents is that in the State of Bihar, there were two separate Secretariats, one for the Legislative Council and another, for the Legislative Assembly and each such Secretariat has its own secretarial officers and staffs and since there is no Legislative Council in the State of Jharkhand, the officers and the employees of the Legislative Council of the State of Bihar cannot possibly be accommodated in the State of Jharkhand.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents have not raised any such Rule as may have been laid down under the State Re-organization Act to suggest that the Government employees in one State, upon their cadre allotment to the other State, can be accommodated only in the establishment corresponding to the establishment in the former State. The Guidelines laid down for the allocation of posts and cadres, as has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, stipulate only that the Government employees shall have the benefit of exercising their option for allotment of their cadre to the one or the other State and there is no such directive that the cadre allocation and the accommodation should be done in the establishments corresponding to the establishment where the employees were earlier posted.

The plea taken by the Respondents to refuse the allocation of the State according to the option exercised by the petitioners, on the ground that the corresponding establishment is not available in the State of Jharkhand, is certainly misconceived and cannot be tenable.

It is informed at the bar that the Central Government has recently published a Circular under which the Government employees have been given a further chance to submit their respective options for allotment of cadre in either of the States. If this be so, then there is no reason as to why the concerned authorities of the Respondents should not reconsider the petitioners'' claim and take an appropriate decision in accordance with the Rules and the Guidelines prescribed in the State Reorganization Act.

In the light of the above discussions and the facts and circumstances of the case as well as from the submissions of the counsel for the parties though it appears that the representations of the petitioners filed way back in 2003 has not been finally disposed of as yet, the petitioners are given liberty to file a fresh representation before the concerned authorities of the Respondents including the Respondent No. 4, who in turn, shall reconsider the claim of the petitioners in the light of the options exercised by them for allotment of the State cadre, in accordance with the Rules and the Guidelines prescribed under the Re-organization Act within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and shall effectively communicate such decision to the petitioners.

With these observations, this writ application stands disposed of.