Nageshwar Pd. Singh and Others vs The State of Bihar and Others

Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J.—The orders in this case particularly 16 September, 2003 and 4 November, 2003 will form part of the proceedings and read with the order which is being passed today.

In 1998 CWJC No. 2022 of 1998:

Nageshwar Pd. Singh and two others (Petitioner No. 2 Ramji Singh, Petitioner No. 3 Nageshwar Prasad along with Petitioner No. 4. as the Bihar Police Association) filed a writ petition raising issues and resisting repatriation to the police department. The relief was denied. Thus, the letters patent appeal.

One aspect was clearly not noticed and this is accepted between the Counsel at bar whether of the Appellant or the State counsel (Mr. S.J. Rahman, G.P. 7) that the issue had been seen without noticing the new legislation which replaces the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. This is manifest error which goes to the root of the matter.

The transport department was meant to have an administration of its own. That is works with borrowed staff is paying lip service to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The State had the option either to absorb the Petitioners or like persons into the transport department or end their deputation. This much liberty was given to the State.

The issue apparently lingered despite the fact that a clear solution had been provided by this Court in its order on 16 September, 2003. By the time the proceedings were drawing to a close, it was quite apparent that some one from high up in the administration was such interested in one or the other incumbents (the Petitioners) to assure a continued deputation. A circumstance indicated to the Court by State counsel, amongst the several present. This state of suspended animation between deputation and absorption cannot continue as it is not in the interest of administration.

Today, learned Counsel for the State has presented a decision which was taken at a meeting on 5 November, 2003. The resume of the proceedings, as were recorded and as have been presented before the Court, are reproduced below:

In so far as the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are concerned only they are left with issues as the Petitioner No. 2 (Ramji Singh son of late Suchit Singh) has returned to work at the police department. The Petitioner No. 1 is Nageshwar Pd. Singh and Petitioner No. 3 is Nageshwar Prasad. By deliberations of 5 November 2003 these Petitioners stand repatriated to the police department and the issues on their payment of emoluments and continuity of services stand resolved.

Thus, the proceedings stand consigned.

Learned Counsel for the State submitted that as this matter has been permitted to be resolved by the State administration the Court may piece on record that this exercise may not be treated as a precedent in any other case. The Court fails to understand how this may become a precedent as each case will be seen on the facts and circumstances of its own strength and to solve disputes is a better exercise instead of leave them lingering in belligerence.

Record consigned.