IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10100 of 2010 Bacha Prasad, son of Late Janak Prasad, resident of Mohalla Kashi Bazar, P.O. and P.S. Bhagwan Bazar, District Chapra……………………………………………………………..…..Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Agriculture Production Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Bihar, Patna – cum - Member Three Men Committee. 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department – cum-Chairman, Three Men Committee 3. The Secretary, (Resources) Finance Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Bihar, Patna – cum - Member Three Men Committee. 5. Director Agriculture, Agriculture Department, Bihar, Patna. 6. Joint Director-cum-Controller weights & Measures, Agriculture Department, Bihar, Patna……………………………………………………………………...Respondents ----------- 2. 28.04.2011 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has filed this writ application for a direction to the respondents to repatriate his services in his parent Department i.e. Agriculture Department in Weights & Measure Section, Government of Bihar and for quashing of the resolution of Three Men Committee dated 20.04.2010 as contained in Annexure- 1, by which his representation was disposed of. He has further prayed for 2 quashing of the letter of the Director, Agriculture dated 01.04.2010, as contained in Annexure-2, whereby he has been adjusted in Agriculture Department in lower pay-scales in terms of the resolution no.5661 dated 02.09.2008 of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that vide office order of the Director, Agriculture, contained in Memo No.5818 dated 15.06.1990 (Annexure-6), certain employees of the Agriculture Department were placed under deputation with Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’), to be absorbed in the Board. The employees started functioning in the Board on deputation. The Board was finally dissolved some time in 2006 and an Administrator was appointed and a Committee was set up which was to take steps for transfer of the employees of the Board in the Government for absorption against available sanctioned posts. The employees, who were thus transferred under 3 the Government, were placed in different departments and organizations / autonomous bodies, like Panchayats and some of them were appointed on contract basis. Three of them moved this Court through CWJC No. 14116 of 2008. Their case before this Court was that, consequent to the said order contained in Memo no. 5818 dated 15.06.1990, no step was taken by the Board for absorption of their services. Hence, they continued with the Board as deputationists, with lien of service under the Government. As such, on being reverted back to the government they should have been absorbed in their parent department itself and as panchayat sevaks in the Directorate of Panchayat Raj. Respondents took stand before the Court that by virtue of the said office order dated 15.06.1990, all the employees stood absorbed in the Board and, therefore, they cannot claim the same post and same service conditions as they had prior to their deputation by the said office order. This Court examined the materials on record and found that even after issuance of the said office 4 order dated 15.06.1990, the State Government had dealt with services of those employees and time to time had issued letters of grant of pay-scale, benefits of A.C.P. etc. in their respect. As such, this Court held that the said office order dated 15.06.1990 was never acted upon in respect of those employees and their liens continued in the department and hence, in effect, they continued as Government employees on deputation with the Board. The writ application was, therefore, disposed of by order dated 05.07.2010, vide Annexure-18, with the said findings and directions to the respondents to allow petitioners to serve on equivalent posts in the Weights and Measure Section of the Agriculture Department. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon the said judgment of this Court and submitted that the case of the present petitioner is also identical to the case of those three petitioners and hence present petitioner should also be directed to be allowed in 5 the Department to continue on equivalent post in the same section of the Department from where he was put on deputation under the Board. Prima facie, the case of the petitioner is identical to those three writ petitioners but for the fact that there was development in the case of the petitioner at the level of the Board in 2006, which respondents have produced in the form of an office order no.330 dated 10.05.2006 of the Managing Director of the Board, contained in Memo No.1723 dated 10.05.2006 as Annexure-C with the counter affidavit. This order shows that petitioner’s services, by specific order, were absorbed under the Board with effect from the date of the order. This clearly distinguishes the case of the petitioner from those three petitioners before this Court. It may be that, from 15.06.1990 upto 10.06.2006, when this order was issued, petitioner had also to be treated as on deputation with his lien in the Department like those three petitioners. But by specific office order in respect of 6 petitioner, his deputation came to an end and he became regular employee of the Board. From Annexure-13 it appears that communication was sent to the Department in respect of absorption of petitioner for the purpose of terminating his lien. After this order, some time in 2006 itself, the Board was dissolved and thereafter an Administrator was appointed to look after day to day affairs of the Board and a Committee was set up to take steps for winding up the Board and transfer its working employees in the Government for their absorption. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to a communication of the Administrator dated 17.07.2009 as contained in Annexure-12. This communication shows that Administrator had treated the petitioner as on deputation under the Board and had sought for guidelines from the Department for his transfer back to the parent Department in respect of payment of his salary as payment of his salary had been stopped. On the basis of this letter, learned senior 7 counsel for the petitioner submits that the order (Annexure-C) communicated by the Managing Director of the Board was not acted upon and therefore, in spite of the same, he should be treated as on deputation under the Board. This Court is unable to accept the said submissions for the two reasons – firstly, prime facie, it appears that the Administrator who was posted with the dissolved Board for looking after its day to day affairs till the Board was wound up finally and its employees were absorbed in the Government, was not likely aware of the order passed by the Managing Director, as contained in Annexure-C and secondly, this order itself shows that payment of salary of the petitioner had been stopped, may be on account of dissolution of the Board as after his absorption he must be getting salary from the Board. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that after the order of the Managing Director, as contained in Annexure-C, the State Government issued any letter or took any action in any manner, whatsoever, treating 8 the petitioner as an employee of the Government. This Court, while disposing of the earlier writ application of said three writ petitioners, had noticed that, as a fact, in respect of those three petitioners, the State Government had, from time to time issued orders in respect of their fixation of pay scale, payment of benefits of A.C.P. etc., even after issuance of the said office order dated 15.06.1990. In the light of that fact situation, this Court had found that the said office order dated 15.06.1990 did not amount to automatic absorption of employees placed on deputation in the Board. But so far as present petitioner is concerned, in fact, he was absorbed under the Board under valid orders of the Managing Director in 2006, vide Annexure- C. As such, petitioner cannot get benefit of the said judgment of this Court, as relied upon by learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Since it has been found that petitioner stood formally absorbed in the Board, petitioner cannot get relief of 9 repatriation of his services. Hence this Court does not find any error in the conclusion arrived at by the Three Men Committee and the order passed by the Department in the matter. However, one thing is clear that, since petitioner had become a regular employee of the Board with certain terms and conditions of the service and the Board was dissolved by the act of the State with policy decision to absorb the employees of the Board under the Government, petitioner is also entitled to be absorbed under the Government but its conditions cannot be to his detriment. Therefore, his service conditions, which he carried in the Board at the time of dissolution, have to be protected and he has to be absorbed under the Government with same/similar service conditions and with same/equivalent pay-scales, but may not be in that very post and under that very department. But so far as his pay- scale etc. is concerned, that cannot be changed to his disadvantage due to act of the Government. 10 The writ application is, therefore, disposed of with above observations in respect of protection of his service conditions upon his absorption in the Government in accordance with law. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)