IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.668 of 2007 KARTIKESH SHANKAR Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Binod Kumar Kanth, Senior Advocate Mr. Girish Nandan Prasad Singh, Advocate Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, Advocate ----------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 25th August, 2008. We heard the senior counsel for the appellant. 2. During the course of motion hearing, he submitted, and in our view fairly, that in the light of the provisions contained in Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, particularly Section 72, it was the Central Government who was to allocate the State to the serving employees of the existing State of Bihar. He also admitted that the only challenge in the writ petition was to the order dated 27th May, 2006 (Annexure-5) whereby the petitioner (appellant herein) was relieved from its service with the State of Bihar for the service of State of Jharkhand. He, thus, admitted that there is no challenge to any - 2 - order that may have been passed by the Central Government under Section 72 of the Act, 2000. He submitted that the order dated 27th May, 2006 may be presumed to have been preceded by an order under Section 72 of the Act, 2000, however, the said order was never received nor served upon the appellant. 3. We are afraid, the challenge to the relieving order dated 27th May, 2006 in the absence of the challenge to the order of the Central Government allocating the appellant’s service to State of Jharkhand may not yield any relief to him. The relieving order dated 27th May, 2006 is only a consequential order pursuant to the order of the State of Bihar, which seems to have been passed in the light of the order passed by the Central Government under Section 72 of the Act, 2000. 4. By way of foot note, we may observe that there is no ground set-up in the writ petition nor in the appeal with regard to existence or otherwise of the order passed by the Central Government. 5. In this backdrop, we find no justification in entertaining this appeal. It is dismissed in limine. 6. However, we observe that in case no order has been passed by the Central Government allocating appellant’s service to the State of Jharkhand, it will be open to the appellant to pursue his remedy afresh challenging his allocation of service to the State of Jharkhand. In that event all contentions of the parties are kept open to - 3 - be agitated in the said proceeding. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-