IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11141 of 1996 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ----- ISHWARCHANDRA SHARMA SON OF SRI KRISHAN SHARMA PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AHALADPUR, P.O. HARIDASPUR, P.S. KANTI DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR PRESENTLY WORKING AS A TYPIST IN GRADE II AT THE HEAD OFFICE OF THE BIHAR STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD. PATNA. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DIRECTOR-N-CHIEF DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMN.) HEALTH SERVICES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ----- A.K.Tripathi,J., It is a long drawn battle for the petitioner after he had come to be absorbed in the department of Health; to be more precise under the Civil Surgeon, Muzaffarpur. Even that position came to be undone by the impugned order contained in annexure- 16 which is - 2 - under challenge. 2. Origin of the present dispute is that a large number of employees working in various Boards and Corporations under the State of Bihar became redundant because of the bad times they had fallen in. Since majority of the employees had served the organizations for long period of time, a policy decision was taken to utilise their services in other departments of the State. Pursuant to the policy decision even a Cell was opened in the department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. The Cell was to act as nodal authority for obtaining list of employees from various Corporations and recommend their absorption in various departments. In the present matter petitioner was an employee of the Bihar State Construction Corporation Limited. Petitioner has brought evidence on record to show that he along with many others of the said Corporation were declared surplus and their names were recommended for absorption. Case of the petitioner was considered by the authorities to be appointed in the Health department as a Non Medical Assistant which is a Class III post under the - 3 - department of Health. Petitioner was allowed or was directed to join at Muzaffarpur under the Civil Surgeon but since no joining was taken, he had to come to this Court earlier seeking a direction. 3. Matter was considered by the High Court and a stand was taken by the State that petitioner may file an appropriate representation before the Secretary- cum-Commissioner, Health Department, who will consider the issue and pass a speaking order. Order in this regard is annexure-14 and is dated 15.9.1995. Petitioner’s detailed representation is annexure-15 which was considered and the Secretary rejected his claim for absorption on the ground that in terms of the Circular issued by the department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms the employee of the State Construction Corporation could not be accommodated in the Health department as they ought to have been accommodated in similar Works department and no case for his absorption was made out. 4. Petitioner has brought enough evidence in support of the fact that a conscious decision was taken by the respondents initially when his case was - 4 - recommended by the Construction Corporation for absorption. Petitioner was accommodated and his service was supposed to be absorbed in terms of the notifications which are there on record which is borne out by the notification dated 13.11.1990 as well as annexure-12 which are official notifications issued in favour of the petitioner. For reasons best known to the respondents, despite such notifications problem arose in his joining and, therefore, petitioner had to rush to the High Court for seeking a direction to facilitate his joining. 5. The Court has also gone through the detailed representation of the petitioner, notification issued in his favour as well as additional material which would show that persons from the Corporation came to be absorbed in various departments of the State of Bihar which included the Rural Department, Labour Department, Finance Department and to that extent the stand taken by the Secretary, Health Department that the petitioner could be accommodated only in a similar Works department seems to be misplaced. The decision rendered in - 5 - favour of the petitioner was based on the policy which was in existence at the relevant time and the case of the petitioner was no exception. 6. Obviously, Secretary, Health Department has misapplied or misunderstood the Circular issued by the State whose primary object was to accommodate such employees in other departments. No doubt preference was to be given to such employee if similar work was still in existence or the departments where his experience could be utilized in a better fashion. Admitted position is that the petitioner was working as a Typist and to that extent it cannot be said that his knowledge or experience was such that it could not be used in non Works department or in a department like the Health. 7. Reasonings given by the Secretary, Health Department in rejecting the claim of the petitioner dated 4.9.1996 contained in annexure-16 to that extent seems to be misplaced and on misinterpretation of the Circular contained in annexures- 7 & 8 of the writ application. 8. Annexure-16, therefore, is quashed. Writ - 6 - application is allowed with a direction upon the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, now known as General Administration to consider the case of the petitioner and to give a suitable direction for his absorption in light of what had transpired in the past. Petitioner would also be free to bring all such notifications and the materials on the basis of which a decision was taken to absorb him earlier irrespective of the impugned order which had been passed against him, along with a copy of this order to facilitate an early decision. The Court expects a decision in this regard within four months from the date of filing of such an application with a copy of this order. 9. This writ application stands allowed but there will be no order as to cost. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) Patna High Court, The 23rd November, 2010. AMIN/ (N.A.F.R.)