IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10954 of 2006 CHANDRA BHUSHAN PD.SINGH s/o late Nunu Singh, resident of village- Ratanpura, Near Dharmnath Jee ke Mandir,P.O. Chapra, P.S. Bhagwan Bazar, District- Saran. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through its Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat Building, Patna. 2. The Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Chairman, Sate Advisory Committee, Sichai Awas, 21, Beli Road, Patna. 4. The Commissioner-cum- Secretary to the Govt., Department of Home (Special), Bihar, Patna. 5. The Deputy Secretary to the Govt. Department of Home (Special), Bihar, Patna. 6. The Commissioner-cum- Secretary to the Govt. in the Finance Department, Bihar, Patna. 7. The Commissioner-cum- Secretary to the Govt. Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna. 8. The Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, P.G and Pensions Department of Personnel and Training Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi. 9. The Commissioner to the Govt., Provident Fund Directorate, Old Secretariat Building, Patna. 10. The Joint Commissioner Account Administration Directorate of Provident Fund ( Finance) Department, Patna. 11. The District Provident Fund Officer,Saran, Chapra. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Lalan Kumar Singh For State of Bihar : Mr. Vijay Bharti, A.C. to S.C. 10 For Sate of Jharkhand : Mr. Dhnba Mukherjee,Senior Standing Counsel 3 14.12.2010 The petitioner was a permanent employee in the Provident Fund Directorate at Madhepura in the State of Bihar. He has filed this writ application on 5.9.2006 praying for issuance of a writ to the State of Bihar to relieve him to join in the State of Jharkhand, so that he can get advantage of extended service period in that State. Counter affidavit having been filed ,with the consent of the parties , the writ application is heard for disposal at this stage itself. 2 On 15.11.2000 the erstwhile State of Bihar was bifurcated with creation of new State of Jharkhand. On 21.12.2000 guidelines for cadre allocation of erstwhile employees of the State of Bihar was issued by the Central Government and a State Advisory Committee was formed. Petitioner asserts that on 12.9.2002 provisional cadre bifurcation was made by the Sate Advisory Committee and the petitioner was allocated Jharkhand cadre. Petitioner further asserts that this was not communicated to him and he continued to work at his place of posting in the State of Bihar till his superannuation on 31.1.2005 and accepted his superannuation as such. In the meantime, on 26.10.2004, the State of Jharkhand took an independent decision to extend the age of superannuation of its employees from 58 years to 60 years. The consequence is that if the petitioner had joined any post in Jharkhand he would have got benefit of two years of extended service and he would have accordingly superannuated on 31.1.2007. The petitioner’s grievance is that he was not relieved from the State of Bihar and could not thus join Jharkhand and has been wrongly deprived of two years of extended service. Having considered the matter, in my view, no relief can be granted to the petitioner because of his own conduct. Firstly, upon petitioner’s own assertion, he superannuated from the State of Bihar on 31.1.2005. If he had so superannuated then there was no question for State of Bihar relieving him to 3 join the State of Jharkhand. Having superannuated in the State of Bihar he was deemed to have been relieved and should have crossed the State of Jharkhand and sought his joining there in pursuance to the provisional cadre bifurcation, as made in the year 2002. He did not do it. Nothing stopped him from doing it. He waited in State of Bihar to collect his retiral due and then moved this Court. Thus, he never appeared before the State of Jharkhand seeking his joining there . He thus disentitled himself to any relief on this basis. The second ground is the decision of the Central Government in this regard, which is Annexure 3 to the writ petition itself. The Central Government on 29.3.2005 notified that the State of Jharkhand had extended the service tenure of its employees from 58 years to 60 years on 26.10.2004 whereas the Government of Bihar did it on 24.3.2005 and issued a clarificatory circular as to the effect of these extension. In clause (a) thereof they deal with people who were posted at Jharkhand but was finally allocated to Bihar, which is not the case here. Clause (b) is relevant and is quoted hereunder: ” (b) those personnel who are posted in Bihar and have attained the age of 58 years on or after 26.10.2004 and have retired but allocated to the successor State of Jharkhand will resume their duty/post in the Sate of Jharkhand and they will get salary from State of Jharkhand w.e.f the date of assuming the charge and their service will be counted in continuity for the purpose of pensionary/retiral benefits but they will not get any salary for the period for which they have not worked due to 4 their retirement in the Sate of Bihar.” A reference to the said clause (b) would show that payment by State of Jharkhand to persons posted in the State of Bihar but allocated Jharkhand cadre is depending on person assuming charge in the State of Jharkhand. On the facts, as noted above, the petitioner never moved Jharkhand authority on the plea that he was not relieved by the Bihar Government. This is factually incorrect. As noticed above, the petitioner had superannuated from Bihar on 31.1.2005, there was no question of relieving by Bihar authority after that. The petitioner was free man and free bird so far as Bihar was concerned. He should have immediately rushed to the State of Jharkhand and sought joining there on basis of the provisional cadre allocation. He did not approach the State of Jharkhand .For seeking mandamus, the fundamental rule is that the aggrieved person first move the authority against whom mandamus is sought for. Here on his own showing that the petitioner had not moved the State of Jharkhand. That being so, no mandamus can issue to the State of Jharkhand at the instance of the petitioner. Thus, not having sought joining in Jharkhand cannot be granted any relief by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed. Singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)