IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6376 of 2005 MANGALDHANI BARA, WIFE OF SRI JYOTIS KHALKHO, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHITTAR KOTO (BARKA TOLI), P.S. RATU, DISTRICT RANCHI. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE DIRECTOR (S.R.) DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, 3RD FLOOR, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR, (S.R.) DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, LOK NAYAK JAIPRAKASH BHAWAN, 3RD FLOOR, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. 3. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, OLD SECRETARIAT, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 4. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 5. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 6. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STATE ADVISORY BOARD, IRRIGATION BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 7. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI. 8. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI. 9. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI. 10. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL (PERSONNEL), GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RESPONDENTS For the petitioner :- Mr. Pushkar Narayan Shahi, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the State of Bihar :- Mr. Partha Sarthy, Advocate For the State of Jharkhand :- Mr. Dhrub Mukherjee, Advocate For the Union of India :- Mr. Sarva Deo Singh, Advocate ********** 7 24.1.2011 Petitioner is an Assistant Teacher and is presently working in Jehanabad. Her husband at the relevant time was a Deputy Superintendent of Police working within the State of Jharkhand. On bifurcation of the State of Bihar into Jharkhand and Bihar, both 2 the husband and wife remained in their respective postings in Bihar and Jharkhand. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the principles by which the services of the government employees were transferred and bifurcated. Clause 1.4 of the same reads as follows: Spouse in State/Sub-State Cadre “This would include case of such spouses where one of them is in the State Cadre (those having all State Transfer Liability and where posts are not exclusively relatable to one successor State only) and the other spouse is in the Sub-State cadre namely Tehsil Village, District etc. If one of the spouses is in the State Cadre and the other in the Sub-State cadre, then the spouse in the sub-State Cadre would be allocated to that successor State to which the spouse in the State Cadre has been finally allocated. Central Government desires that in respect of the above, the successor State Governments may consider these cases at their own level, subject to written representations being received in this regard from spouses working in the sub-State cadres.” On the basis of the aforesaid Clause, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is on a transferable job, she should be transferred to where her husband is working. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 6, Chairman, State Advisory Committee stating at paragraph 5 that 3 “the Committee is not assigned the task of distribution of district/divisional or posts of regional Character. These posts and personnels holding such posts are to be left in the same successor state where they are presently located.” The stand has been taken on the basis of the Government of India guidelines at paragraph 4.3 and 5.4 dated 7/8.7.2001. On perusal of Clause 4.3 it appears that there is a general direction that those working in a particular State should be allocated the State where they are working on the appointed date. However, Clause 4.8 deals with such cases where both husband and wife are Government employees working in different State. There has been a recommendation that the Committee should consider this aspect while making final allocation to allot them to one or the other State as far as practicable. The present position is that the husband of the petitioner has retired whereas the petitioner is still in service as an Assistant Teacher. It has been submitted that on the date on which the writ application was filed, the petitioner was entitled to be considered in terms of the Government’s own 4 policy by the appropriate Committee. The fact that her husband has retired should not come in the way of the Committee considering that the petitioner is entitled for consideration of the guidelines laid down by the State Government. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that her entire family live at Jharkhand and it has become even more important for her to remain in the State of Jharkhand at this stage of her service as the petitioner has already attained the age of 56. I, accordingly direct that a representation should be filed before the appropriate authority by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks on receipt/production of a copy of this order. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 should consider their own policy and pass an appropriate order within a period of two months on receipt of the representation. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)