IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7124 of 2010 1. RAM SEVAK ROY S/O LATE MISHRI LAL ROY R/O VILL.- BAHADURPUR, P.S. GHATAHO, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSION NEW DELHI 2. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY HOME (SPECIAL) DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY HOME (SPECIAL) DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DIRECTOR (PRIMARY EDUCATION) BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SARAN AT CHAPRA 7. SMT. CHHAYA KUMARI, BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER SONEPUR, DISTT.- SARAN AT CHAPRA 8. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, RANCHI 9. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ----------- 2. 13.08.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner was employed as a Block Education Extension Officer at Sonepur, District Saran. He was asked to handover charge to respondent no. 7. He acknowledges having done so. Consequent to the reorganization of the State of Bihar his services were then handed over to the State of Jharkhand. In view of his impending retirement in June 2011 he represented to the authorities of the State of Bihar with regard to his allocation to the State of Jharkhand. On 16.6.2008 the Deputy Secretary, Home (Special) Department, issued directions that the petitioner should not be relieved from the State of Bihar pending the request made to the Union of India for reconsideration of his cadre allocation. It appears that thereafter the petitioner came to this Court in CWJC No. 12109 of 2008. This Court only directed the authorities to take final decision on his request to allow him to remain in the State of Bihar. This Court declined to interfere with the earlier order of the State relieving him to join State of Jharkhand. Had the matters 2 stopped there, there was no occasion for this Court to interfere in the present writ application. Subsequently on 25.6.2009 the Deputy Secretary again issued another letter referring to the order of the Court in CWJC No. 12109 of 2008 to direct that in view of the earlier direction dated 16.6.2008 (Annexure 3 discussed above) and the subsequent direction dated 20.3.2009 it has been decided to pursue actively with the Union of India his request for repatriation to the State of Bihar. Counsel for the State submits that there was no occasion for issuance of the order dated 25.6.2009 after this Court in CWJC No. 12109 of 2008 declined interference. This Court holds that the State Government or its functionaries cannot challenge its own order. It is not the case of the State Government that no such letter was issued by it. The binding effect on the respondents is succinctly explained in (2005) 9 SCC 129 (State of Bihar & ors. Vs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasang) at paragraph 64 as under:- “64 So far as the order dated 18.12.1989 is concerned, the State being the author of that decision, merely because it is formally not expressed in the name of the Governor in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution, the State itself cannot be allowed to resile or go back on that decision. Mere change of the elected Government does not justify dishonouring the decisions of previous elected Government. If at all the two decisions contained in the orders dated 1.2.1988 and 18.12.1989 were not acceptable to the newly elected Government, it was open to it to withdraw or rescind the same formally. In the absence of such withdrawal or rescission of the two orders dated 1.2.1988 and 18.12.1989, it is not open to the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand (which has been created after reorganization of the State of Bihar) to contend that those decisions do not bind them.” 3 The writ application stands allowed in terms of the administrative direction dated 25.6.2009. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)