IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14478 of 2008 VED PRAKASH LAL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No. 14485 of 2008 ANANDI BHAGAT Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC NO. 14372 of 2008 ANIL PRAKASH SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 21.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned for the State of Bihar. The Bihar State Agriculture Produce Market Committee was dissolved. Its assets merged with the State Government on 1.9.2006. The Bihar Agriculture Produce Market (Repeal) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2006’) came to be challenged before this Court in CWJC No. 10055 of 2006 and analogous cases. The Division Bench by judgment and order dated 14.2.2008 upheld the validity of the same, which has been questioned before the Supreme Court and is pending consideration in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 14088 of 2008. That is not the concern of the present order. The Division Bench in CWJC No. 10055 of 2006, however, observed that after the Committee as created by Section 6(2) of the Act of 2006 gave its recommendations and which was accepted by the Government, in so far as the issue of absorption of the employees of the erstwhile dissolved Board is concerned, it may be challenged by those, who may be affected by operation of the scheme. 2 The scheme has now been framed on 2.9.2008 at Annexure-8. In question, in the present writ petition is clause 2(1) of the scheme for absorption. It provides that the employees of the erstwhile Board shall be entitled to absorption only on the post that may be decided irrespective of whether it may be on a lower pay scale. That they would not be entitled to pay protection at the time of such absorption. In the present case, the petitioners hold the post of Executive Engineer in the erstwhile Board and have now been absorbed in the Building Construction Department of the State Government on the post of Junior Engineer. Learned counsel for the petitioners made a limited submission that the authorities are expected to act reasonably and prudently in the matter. Merely because the Board has been dissolved and a decision to absorb persons like the petitioners had been taken, they not being in bargaining position, cannot be treated in a manner to compound their limited defence in view of the scheme of absorption when otherwise they would be left jobless. The submission, therefore, is that fairness and reasonableness on the part of the respondents demands that as and when under the scheme erstwhile employee of the Board is to be absorbed, all efforts should be first made to absorb them in another Department commensurate with his status and pay. Only in the event that it is not possible, the Respondents shall be justified in adjusting the absorbed employee on a lower post/pay scale. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State does not 3 oppose this limited submission. He, however, submits that the petitioners, in fact, had no right for absorption but for the scheme framed in a statutory manner, the issue of absorption may raise various problems with regard to availability of vacancies, adjustment of vacancies etc. Therefore, the Respondents must be given liberty to examine all aspects of the matter before taking a decision. The stand taken on behalf of the parties makes the issue much easier for the Court to resolve. All that is now required to be observe that in pursuance of the scheme formulated by the State Government for absorption even while this court does not find any infirmity in clause 2(1) of the scheme dated 2.9.2008, yet, the Court considers it proper to observe that reasonableness and prudence shall require that the State authorities shall make all possible efforts for such absorption on a post and pay scale commensurate that the person was holding. It is clarified that this shall not deem as creating any right in the petitioners but only that as a welfare State the authorities are expected to act reasonably and prudently. Learned counsel for the Respondents fairly submits that any representation of the petitioners shall be duly considered in accordance with law. The writ applications stand disposed with the aforesaid observation. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)