IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14541 of 2009 PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE J. SINHA VILL- SADIPUR, P.S. GOREYA KOTHI, DISTT. SIWAN, PRESENTLY FUNCTIONING AS CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, IN THE OFFICE OF THE PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (DISSOLVED), PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 2ND FLOOR, 'C' BLOCK, MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTT. PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING DEPTT., NEW SECRETARIAT, 1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, P.S. SACHIVALAYA, DISTT. PATNA 2. THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 2ND FLOOR, 'C' BLOCK, MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTT. PATNA 3. JOINT SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING DEPTT., NEW SECRETARIAT, 1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, P.S. SACHIVALAYA, DISTT. PATNA 4. THE SECRETARY BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 15, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA-800 001 5. ASHOK KUMAR SINHA S/O NOT KNOWN SENIOR AUDIT OFFICER, PRESENTLY DESIGNATED AS CONTROLLER OF MUNICIPAL FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS IN THE OFFICE OF THE PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BUDH MARG, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTT. PATNA For the Petitioner : M/s H.S. Himkar, A. Kumar, Advocates. For the PMC : Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha, Advocate. ----------- 09. 12.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation(hereinafter referred to as the PMC). 2. Petitioner at the relevant time held the post of Chief Accounts Officer in the Patna Regional Development Authority (Dissolved) (hereinafter referred to as the PRDA), PMC. He is aggrieved by the order of the Municipal Commissioner, PMC bearing Memo Nos.2352 and 2353 dated 08.10.2009, Annexures-11 and 11/1 directing the petitioner to hand over charge of accounts of the PRDA to respondent no.5 and to discharge the 2 duties of Internal Auditor, failing which serious consequences shall follow. He is further aggrieved by the order of the Municipal Commissioner, PMC dated 14.10.2009, Annexure-12, whereunder request of the petitioner contained in letter Nos.2055 and 2056 dated 10.10.2009 to modify the orders dated 8.10.2009 was rejected directing respondent no.5 to unilaterally assume the charge of accounts of the PRDA in the light of the notification of the Urban Development and Housing Department of the State Government bearing No.3743 dated 10.9.2009, Annexure-8. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the three impugned orders dated 8.10.2009 and 14.10.2009, Annexures-11, 11/1 and 12 passed by the Municipal Commissioner, PMC is in teeth of the notification of the State Government dated 10.9.2009, Annexure-8, whereunder respondent no.5 was posted in the PMC on the post of Controller of Municipal Finances and Accounts until further orders and could not have been given the charge of Accounts of PRDA under the three impugned orders. 4. It is further submitted that on the basis of the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission petitioner was appointed on the post of Chief Accounts Officer in the PRDA with effect from 31.3.1989 3 as is evident from the requisition form of the Secretary, PRDA dated 26.10.1987, requisition letter dated 27.10.1987, recommendation of the Commission, the State Government dated 14.9.1988 and 5.11.1988, appointment letter dated 9.2.1989 and the intimation of joining dated 6.4.1989 as contained in Annexures-1 to 6 to this application. It is further submitted that PRDA was constituted under the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1981(hereinafter referred to as the BRDA Act) which was repealed under the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007(hereinafter referred to as the PMC Act). Sub- Section-(3) of Section-488 of the PMC Act provides that PRDA shall cease to exist with effect from the date the PMC Act came into force i.e. with effect from 5.4.2007 the date on which the PMC Act was published in the Bihar Gazette(Extraordinary). Sub-Section-(4) of Section-488 of the PMC Act provides that even after cessation/dissolution of the PRDA every officer serving the PRDA on the date of dissolution shall be deemed to have been transferred to and become an officer of the PMC, subject to the scrutiny of the requirement of the PMC assessed by the State Government with such designation as the PMC may determine and hold office by the same tenure, remuneration and the terms and conditions of service as he would have held if the BRDA 4 Act was not repealed. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that till date neither the requirement of the PMC has been assessed by the State Government nor the designation of the officers of the PRDA has been re- determined by the PMC, in the circumstances petitioner has to continue as an officer on the same terms and conditions of service as he would have held if the BRDA Act was not repealed and the three impugned orders have been passed dehorse the provisions contained in Sub- Section-(4) of Section-488 of the PMC Act. 6. It is also submitted that State Government was conscious of the aforesaid legal position and in appreciation thereof under notification dated 10.9.2009, Annexure-8 respondent no.5 was appointed on the post of Controller of Municipal finances and Accounts in the PMC and was not entrusted with the charge of accounts of the PRDA which was required to be separately maintained until the accounts of the PMC is updated in view of the instructions of the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department incorporated under office order no.121 dated 5.12.2007, Annexure-13 to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner. 7. Counsel for the PMC has opposed the submission. He states that after repeal of the BRDA Act, 5 PRDA has ceased to exist and its account has merged with the account of PMC and in appreciation of such legal position this Court should not interfere with the impugned orders and the writ application be dismissed as by divesting the petitioner of the charge of accounts of the PRDA his status is not being affected as he has to serve the PMC on the post of Internal Auditor on the same remuneration, which he was drawing on the date of dissolution of the PRDA. 8. Having heard counsel for the parties as also having perused the provisions of the PMC Act, I am of the view that PRDA stood dissolved with effect from 5.4.2007, the date on which the Act was notified in the Bihar Gazette (Extraordinary), whereafter services of the petitioner stood transferred to the PMC but he has to continue on the same post/remuneration which he was holding/drawing on the date of dissolution until the State Government determined the requirements of the PMC and petitioner is adjusted/fitted at the appropriate post in the PMC. In appreciation of the aforesaid legal position, PMC under order dated 5.12.2007, Annexure-13 complied the instruction of the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Bihar to maintain the accounts of the PRDA separately until the accounts of the PMC is updated. Under notification dated 6 10.9.2009, Annexure-8 Government posted respondent no.5 in the PMC to hold the charge of the post of Controller of Municipal Finances and Accounts of the PMC and not of PRDA. It is thus evident that the three impugned orders dated 8.10.2009 and 14.10.2009, Annexures-11, 11/1 and 12 have been passed contrary to the provisions contained in Sub-Section-(4) of Section- 488 of the PMC Act and the notification of the State Government dated 10.9.2009, Annexure-8, which is accordingly, quashed. My aforesaid views are in tune with the contents of the office order dated 5.5.2010 passed by the Municipal Commissioner, PMC, whereunder petitioner has been relieved to join the post of Finance Officer in the Central University, Jharkhand and the said office order is also taken on record. 9. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed. AFR Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)