Letters Patent Appeal No.657 OF 2000 -------- (Against Judgment and order dated 4th April, 2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.5647 of 1999). -------- SMT.USHA KIRAN SHARMA & ORS----------------------Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS-----------------------------Respondents P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH Barin Ghosh & J.N. Singh, J.J. In the writ petition, registered as C.W.J.C. No. 5647 of 1999, the appellants sought for direction for implementation of the decision of the Government whereby and under the Government had decided that employees of sick Government undertakings would be taken in District Industries Centres under the Industries Department of the State. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned Judge who dealt with the writ petition, felt that the petitioners were seeking absorption in the undertaking where they were then working. The learned Judge found as a fact that the said undertaking is a Government Company registered under the Companies Act and proceedings for liquidation of the said Company have been initiated. In view of the then state of affairs of the employer- - 2 - company, the learned Judge by the judgment and order under appeal refused to entertain the writ petition. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been preferred. 2. It is the contention of the appellants, as advanced through their counsel, that many a Government undertakings became non-functional due to various reasons. It was submitted that in order to give relief to the employees working in such dis-functional Government undertakings, the State Government had decided to depute employees working in those undertakings to work in various District Industries Centres under the Industries Department of the State. It was submitted that in the light of the said decision of the Government, the employer- company prepared a list and forwarded the same to the Secretary, Industries Department of the Government. It was contended that while no action was taken on the basis of such list, many a people similarly situated to that of the appellants and working in the said employer- company or in some other similar companies or undertakings have been deputed to work in different District Industries Centres of the Government. It was contended that the prayer for implementation of the said decision of the Government with - 3 - respect to some has been allowed, but the learned Judge has failed to appreciate that for no just reason the said decision of the Government has not been implemented in respect of the appellants. 3. It is true that the appellants, in the writ petition, did not seek absorption in their employer-company, for they were already there. The writ petition was for a direction to depute them to work in different District Industries Centres of the State, inasmuch as the employer-company by that time had become defunct and the employees thereof had been recommended for such deputation by the employer-company. 4. From the documents relied upon by the appellants, it appears that having noted the precarious condition of employees of different sick Government undertakings, the Government decided to offer them engagement at various District Industrial Centres of the State and in terms thereof many a people had been permitted to be engaged in such District Industries Centres. However, the direction of the Government on that score was altered in the end of December, 1998 and at that stage it was decided that in the matter of such engagement the policy of the Government as followed by the - 4 - Treasury Directorate shall only be followed. The Government asked the employer of the appellants to prepare a list of people working under it and to forward the same to the Government for the purpose of taking a decision in relation to them. It appears that in the month of January, 1999 the employer of the appellants prepared a list in terms of such direction of the Government issued in the month of December, 1998 and in such list the names of the appellants found place. Subsequent thereto nothing had happened and at least it is not clear from the documents, on which reliance has been placed, whether any action had been taken thereafter. It does not appear, nor it is the case of the appellants, that any one from the list so prepared in January, 1999 had been appointed ignoring the claim of the appellants for consideration. It may be possible that on the policy of the Government and instructions issued in relation thereto until prior to December, 1998 many persons got an opportunity to serve District Industries Centres of the State, but there is nothing on record which would suggest that on the basis of the new policy adopted in December, 1998, anyone was allowed to work in any of the District Industries Centres. The appellants have brought on record a letter dated 2nd December, - 5 - 1999, whereby and under one of the persons, who had been listed in the list prepared by the employer of the appellants in January, 1999, got a deputation in the Bihar State Co-operative Bank Limited. It was submitted that the same suggests discrimination. The policy of December, 1998, upon which reliance has been placed, suggests permission to work only in District Industries centers and not in any other organization. The list of January, 1999, was prepared of those employees who were to serve the District Industries centres. The person, who has been appointed by the Bihar State Co-operative Bank Limited, is a person, who has been permitted by Bihar State Co- operative Bank Limited to work in its establishment. The same is a decision of the Bihar State Co-operative Bank Limited. The Bihar State Co-operative Bank Limited did not hold out by any of its actions, directly or indirectly, or either through the instrumentality of the State or otherwise that it would consider the case of permitting any of the persons listed in January, 1999 by the employer of the appellants to work with it. That being the situation, the logical conclusion would be that the action of the Bihar State Co-operative Bank Limited, as depicted in its letter dated 2nd December, 1999, is a completely separate - 6 - transaction and on the basis thereof it would be unjust to contend discrimination by the Bihar State Co-operative Bank Limited, who was not even a respondent in the writ petition and has not been added as a respondent in the appeal. At the same time beneficiary of the said letter of the Bihar State Co- operative Bank Limited dated 2nd December, 1999 was also not a respondent in the writ petition, nor has been added as a respondent to the present appeal. As a result we are not in a position to take note of the benefit accorded to the said person for the purpose of deciding whether the appellants have been discriminated. 5. In the circumstances, the conclusion would be that the order of dismissal of the writ petition is not interferable and as such the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (Barin Ghosh, J) (J. N. Singh, J.) Patna High Court 2nd July, 2008 Arvind/N.A.F.R.