Megh nath Jha vs State of Jharkhand

Inspite of opportunity granted, the respondent- State of Bihar has not filed its affidavit.

This is 9th listing of this writ petition.

Multiple prayers have been made in the writ petition. The main prayer, however, is for payment of salary for the period between 21.09.2001 to

31.01.2009 and payment of post-retiral benefits to the petitioner.

Briefly stated, the petitioner claims that he was appointed on 30.03.1974 as Assistant Teacher in Rajkiya Sanskrit High School, Sultanganj and in the

seniority-list of the Assistant Teachers published on 30.04.1981 his name figures at Sl. No.111.

While working as Assistant Teacher, he was transferred to Adult-cum-Non-Formal Education Programme vide notification dated 29.07.1981 and

posted at Narayanpur, District-Dumka (presently within State of Jharkhand); one post of Assistant Teacher was kept reserved at Rajkiya Sanskrit

High School which is reflected in letter dated 02.07.1988. When he was not paid salary, he came to this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3676 of 2003; one of

the grievance raised by the petitioner was against an order by which he was transferred to the Sanskrit School, Deoghar as Assistant Teacher from

the post of Project Officer. The writ petition stood disposed of with a direction to the Director, Secondary Education and the Director, Primary and

Adult Education to take a decision in the matter within one month. Petitioner's claim was declined by an order dated 13.05.2009 on the ground that

once his deputation was terminated by order dated 20.09.2001, salary cannot be paid to him by the Government of Jharkhand. Challenging the said

order the petitioner again came to this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3036 of 2011 with a similar prayer. During proceeding of the writ petition affidavits

were exchanged and direction was issued to the Director, Primary Education and the Director, Secondary Education to sit together and arrive at a

conscious decision, however, a definite conclusion could not be arrived. Finally, the writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 13.09.2013 with

direction to the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department to take a decision on the claim of the petitioner within 12 weeks.

Stand taken by the petitioner is that the State of Bihar has no jurisdiction to pass an order in relation to an employee who was working under the

Government of Jharkhand after bifurcation of the State. To fortify the aforesaid contention, Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the

petitioner has referred to the cadre allocation order dated 06.05.2005 by which the petitioner was allocated Jharkhand cadre.

On admitted facts petitioner's transfer under the Adult-cum-Non-Formal Education Programme as a Project Officer was on a lien. On his own

saying the petitioner admits that one post of Assistant Teacher was kept reserved in the Rajkiya Sanskrit High School, Sultanganj. In these facts,

once the Adult-cum-Non-Formal Education Programme was closed by the Government of India and the employees working under the scheme were

terminated from service through a public notice issued on 16.05.2001 by the Government of Jharkhand, petitioner's deputation as Project Officer under

the Government of Jharkhand stood terminated and his lien in the Rajkiya Sanskrit High School, Sultanganj (Bihar) stood revived.

The petitioner has pleaded that he was not relieved by the Government of Jharkhand and inspite of instructions sought in the matter no direction

was issued by the Government of Jharkhand and he remained within the administrative control of the Government of Jharkhand. On this plea it is

pertinent to record that in the previous writ proceedings the petitioner never sought a direction upon the Government of Jharkhand to relieve him so as

to enable him to join his post as Assistant Teacher in Rajkiya Sanskrit High School, Sultanganj.

His stand that he was not relieved by the Government of Jharkhand would not revive his deputation as Project Officer, a non-existent post after

16.05.2001. He has not pleaded that he tried to join his post as Assistant Teacher in Rajkiya Sanskrit High School, Sultanganj but he was not

permitted to join. In fact, by order dated 20.09.2001 his service was returned to his original controlling Department- Primary Education, Bihar.Â

There was no prayer by the petitioner in the previous writ proceedings for a direction upon the respondent- State of Jharkhand to give effect to the

cadre allocation order dated 06.05.2005. In this order he has been allotted Jharkhand cadre on an assumption that he was working as Project

Officer. The petitioner has raised a plea that by order dated 20.09.2001 issued by the Director, Mass Education, Government of Bihar his

deputation cannot be terminated. In my opinion, the aforesaid order dated 20.09.2001 issued by the Government of Bihar is a mere consequential

order consequent to public notice dated 16.05.2001 issued by the Government of Jharkhand. The cadre allocation order dated 06.05.2005 is a

subsequent development and it has been issued under a mistake of fact. As an Assistant Teacher petitioner's cadre could not have been transferred

to the State of Jharkhand; a teacher appointed in a school in the State of Bihar cannot be allocated Jharkhand cadre.Â

On the claim for payment of salary it is pertinent to indicate that in order dated 13.05.2009 the Director, Primary Education has recorded that

there was no evidence that the petitioner has continued to work after 21.09.2001. This stand seems to have been accepted by the petitioner when

he himself has pleaded in the writ petition that the District Education Officer, Giridih did not permit him to join and as such he superannuated from

service on 31.01.2009 (para 30). May be, the respondent- Secretary in the impugned order dated 20.12.2013 has relied on order dated 21.09.2001,

in my opinion, once it is found that the petitioner was transferred to Adult-cum-Non-Formal Education Programme on a lien with his parent High

School, after closure of the scheme under the Programme he cannot be considered an employee of the State of Jharkhand.

In the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.