IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.986 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10100 of 2010 ====================================================== Bacha Prasad, son of late Janak Prasad, resident of Mohalla Kashi Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Bhagwan Bazar, Distt. Chapra. .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the 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, (Resource) 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 and Measures, Agriculture Department, Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rajeshwar Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Kaushik, A.C. to G.P.-11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 11-07-2011 This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the writ petitioner against the judgment and order dated 28th April 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 10100 of 2010. It is the claim of the appellant that initially he was Patna High Court LPA No.986 of 2011 (2) dt.11-07-2011 2 appointed in the Department of Weights and Measures of the Government of Bihar. In 1974 his service was transferred to the Bihar Agriculture Marketing Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) on deputation. The Board was dissolved in the year 2006. The appellant continued to serve the Board till its dissolution in 2006 on deputation. All along the appellant had a lien in the State service. On dissolution of the Board, like other employees working on deputation, the appellant ought to have been repatriated to his parent department. However, the appellant was treated as an employee of the Board and like other employees of the Board under resolution dated 2nd September 2008, he was accommodated as an Assistant in the Agriculture Department of the State of Bihar. The learned single Judge did not accept the aforesaid plea of the appellant. Learned single Judge held that by a specific order made on 10th May 2006 the appellant was absorbed in the service of the Board. On the date of dissolution of the Board, he was an employee of the Board. He was, therefore, not entitled to repatriation to his parent department. Therefore, the present appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Rajeshwar Prasad appears for the appellant. He has assailed the judgment of the learned single Judge. He has vehemently argued that although under the order dated 15th June 1990, it was decided to absorb the appellant and such others in the service of the Board, the said decision was never acted upon; nor was the lien of the appellant in the State service ever terminated. This is also evident by the communication dated 17th July 2009 sent by the Administrator of the Board. He has submitted that one Triloki Nath Singh was Patna High Court LPA No.986 of 2011 (2) dt.11-07-2011 3 similarly situated as the appellant. At the time of dissolution of the Board, the said Triloki Nath Singh was repatriated to his parent department in the State service. Though the appellant was entitled to a similar treatment, he has been deliberately deprived of his right to repatriation and has been discriminated against. We are unable to agree with the learned Advocate Mr. Rajeshwar Prasad. It has come on record that the appellant was appointed in Class IV service of the State of Bihar in the Weights and Measures Department. His service was transferred to the Board on deputation in 1974. While on deputation, he was promoted by the State Government to the post of Lower Division Clerk. During the period of his deputation option was called for. The appellant had exercised option in favour of absorption in the service of the Board. Pursuant to the said option on 15th June 1990 a decision was taken to absorb the appellant in the service of the Board. However though, the said decision was not acted upon. Lateron by specific order made on 10th May 2006, the appellant was absorbed in the service of the Board. The Board also granted further promotion to the post of Upper Division Assistant. Thus, on the date of dissolution of the Board, he was a permanent employee of the Board. Under the Government Resolution dated 2nd September 2008 the appellant was accommodated in the State service as an Assistant in the Agriculture Department. Further, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in CWJC No.179 of 2006 and CWJC No.10421 of 2008, a Committee of three officers of the Government examined the claim of the petitioner. Under its report dated 22nd April 2010, the said Committee opined that the appellant was not entitled to repatriation to the parent department. The said Committee, inter alia, noted that during his service in the Patna High Court LPA No.986 of 2011 (2) dt.11-07-2011 4 Board, the appellant was further promoted as Upper Division Assistant (Pay Scale 5500-9000). Had the appellant been a State servant he would have been promoted as Upper Division Clerk (Pay Scale 4000-6000). In view of specific order of absorption of the appellant in the service of the Board, the learned single Judge has rightly rejected his claim for repatriation to the parent department. No case for interference is made out. Appeal is dismissed in limine. M. Rahman/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)