IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15517 of 2008 Navin Kumar, Son of Late Rituraj Prasad Yadav, Resident of Mohalla- Adarsh Coloney, Shyam Chak, P.S.-Chapra Town, District-Chapra, At present posted as Clerk, Balvikash Pariyojana Office, Issuapur, Saran at Chapra. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra. 3. The Managing Director, Bihar State Construction Corporation Ltd., Patna. 4. The Director I.C.D.S. (Integrated Child Development Scheme) Social Welfare Department, Indira Bhawan, Ram Charitra Singh Path, Patna. -Respondents. ***** For the Petitioner : Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Basant Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Gyan Shankar, Adv. For the Corporation : Mr. R.K. Shukla. For the State : Dr. Md. Raisul Haque, G.P.-5 Mr. Binay Kumar, J.C. to G.P.-5. ***** 03 07.08.2009 The petitioner was a permanent employee of the Bihar State Construction Corporation Limited, as is usual State creates Corporations and then the Corporations are left like orphan child. There being no work for the Corporation. There were no amounts to pay its employees and the huge establishment set up. State decided to send the employees on deputation to other departments and Corporations. Petitioner was accordingly sent to the Integrated Child Development Scheme (I.C.D.S.) at the disposal of Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar. There he has worked for over 10 years. The age of superannuation of employees of the Construction Corporation was originally 58 years. In the year 2005 the State Government increased the age of superannuation of its employees from 58 years to 60 years. Various statutory or other Corporations of the State followed the suit in several decisions. Now, it has been held that so far as employees of this - 2 - Corporation are concerned their age of superannuation also stood extended to 60 years. The Corporation consistently accepted the decisions of this Court, but regrettably chose not to act on it. One of the reasons being that the Corporation itself is headless. So much so that the workers union of the Corporation ultimately came to this Court for the same declaration even though earlier in relation to various employees of the Corporation it had already been held that the age of superannuation stood extended to 60 years. Now, coming to the petitioner. There were large numbers of employees on deputation on various schemes including the I.C.D.S., as stated above. The authority in I.C.D.S. not being aware of the age of superannuation of the employees on deputation ordered as per the impugned annexure that two days prior to employees on deputation attaining the age of 58 years their deputation must be cancelled. They must be sent back to their parent Corporation/department only to avoid uncommon complications and consequences. Petitioner’s deputation was accordingly cancelled which immediately brought the petitioner to this Court. Even prior to cancellation of the deputation this Court had held that the age of superannuation stood extended, there was no need to cancel the deputation even otherwise cancellation of deputation was arbitrary and unjust. A some what similar situation had arisen in the case of Md. Nizam Vs. The State of Bihar being C.W.J.C. No. 16333 of 2006 which was decided on 18th March, 2008 by this Court where it was clearly held that the cancellation of deputation by I.C.D.S. of the employees of the Construction Corporation was unjust and illegal and it - 3 - was held that he would be deemed to be continuing on deputation and continuing accordingly. Let it be noted that against this writ petition the Corporation has preferred no appeal and Corporation has accepted the judgment. Still, in spite of this order this Court dated 18th March, 2008 petitioner by the same I.C.D.S. is being sent back to the same Construction Corporation on the same ground in September 2008 is wholly unwarranted action. I, therefore, hold that the order of repatriation of petitioner from I.C.D.S. to the Construction Corporation is unjust, illegal and is quashed accordingly. It will be deemed that the petitioner continues to work and would be entitled to full remuneration as such. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)