IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15623 of 2001 RAMJAG PRASAD & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 8 1.10.2008 For the Petitioners : M/s R.B.Mahto, Sr. Advocate and Ajay, Advocate For the State : Mr Binod Kumar, Advocate For Private Respondents : M/s S.P.Mukherjee, Sr.Advocate Shanti Pratap and Dharnidhar Mishra, Advocates ------- Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the private respondents. The petitioners were in the cadre of Clerks under the Buxar Collectorate. By virtue of a Government policy decision contained in Annexure-2 dated 17.1.1994 some employees of Consolidation Projects of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar were required to be adjusted in other departments because of suspension of Consolidation Projects/ Consolidation Department. Under such policy as required by the State Government the private respondents were adjusted in the cadre of clerks in the Collectorate in different districts and at other places as per availability of posts. The petitioners are aggrieved on account of private respondents being made senior to the petitioners in the 2 concerned gradation list published under the authority of District Magistrate, Buxar which is under challenge. Through a supplementary counter affidavit the respondents no.6, 7 and 8 have brought before this Court Annexures A and B to show that as per opinion of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, the seniority in this matter was required to be determined in accordance with circular no.15784 dated 26.8.1972 which is Annexure-B and in paragraph 3(gha)(iii) provides that if an employee is transferred from one service to another on his own request then his earlier service will not be counted for the purpose of seniority but if such transfer of service is under policy decision of the Government then the length of service rendered by such employee in the earlier service shall be counted for seniority. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on a careful reading of Annexure-2 it would appear that service of the private respondents was not to be transferred on permanent basis because some work of the Consolidation Department was to continue and in fact, it has continued. On careful reading of Annexure-2 this Court finds that there was a clear policy decision that the employees of the Consolidation Project/ Department on account of suspension of 3 consolidation work were required to be adjusted in various departments, boards, corporations and other authorities of the State Government. The word “SAMAYOJAN” cannot mean temporary transfer. It can only mean permanent absorption in the transferred service. Further, the order whereby the private respondents were taken in the service under the Collectorate is not challenged directly and only the matter of seniority is at issue. The matter of seniority appears to have been decided properly in accordance with earlier policy decision. As a result, this Court finds no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) sk