IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8738 of 2010 1. Suman Gupta S/O Shri Jagdeesh Prasad Gupta R/O Jagdeesh Printing Press , Banmankhi, P.S.Banmankhi, Distt- Purnea Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary Bihar, Patna 2. The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief Secretary Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department Jharkhand , Ranchi 4. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department Bihar, Patna 5. The Principal Secretary, Personnel And Administrative Reforms Department Bihar, Patna 6. The Principal Secretary, Personnel , Administrative Reforms And Rajbhasha Department Jharkhand, Ranchi 7. The Principal Secretary, Food , Public Distribution And Consumer Affairs Department Jharkhand, Ranchi 8. The Deputy Secretary, Food , Public Distribution And Consumer Affairs Department Jharkhand, Ranchi ---------------------------------- 3. 19.10.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the State of Jharkhand and the State of Bihar. Consequent to the reorganization of the State of Bihar the petitioner was originally allocated the State of Jharkhand. He pursued matters before this Court and in pursuance of directions given for examination of his grievance he came to be reallocated the State of Bihar. The grievance in the writ petition is primarily two fold:- (a) Non payment of the Transfer Travelling Allowance by the State of Jharkhand where he had to join originally till reallocation was done by the State Advisory Committee; (b) Payment of the revised pay scale ruled by the Fitment Committee in the State of Jharkhand for the period that he discharged duties in a substantive capacity in the State of Jharkhand before reallocation. 2 In so far as claim (a) is concerned, it is submitted that the Travelling Allowance was not paid by the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner only desires a certificate to that effect be issued to him by the State of Jharkhand to enable him to pursue matters for relief before the State of Bihar. The Court finds the prayer extremely reasonable and allows the same with consequential directions to the State of Jharkhand. if it has not paid the Travelling Allowance. Thereafter consideration be done by the State of Bihar in accordance with law. The foundation for the second claim shall depend upon whether the petitioner was tentatively or finally allocated the Jharkhand cadre, before he was reallocated the State of Bihar in pursuance of the directions in CWJC No. 5381 of 2007. If the petitioner was only tentatively allocated State of Jharkhand, Counsel for the State of Jharkhand is right in his submission that the question of payment of any pay scale in accordance with the report of the Fitment Committee in the State of Jharkhand to the petitioner does not arise as the final cadre allocation done was for the State of Bihar. But, if the petitioner was finally allocated the State of Jharkhand, joined there in a substantive capacity and discharged duties he cannot be treated as an employee of the State of Jharkhand for certain purposes and not for other purposes. For the duration in question till fresh reallocation he substantively remained an employee of State of Jharkhand for all purposes. If any revision in pay scale was done for the post on which he was substantively working in the State of Jharkhand consequent to the final allocation, he is naturally entitled to the benefit of the same for the period that he actually worked in the State of Jharkhand. The issue of reallocation of his cadre cannot be confused with the original final allocation done. 3 The petitioner has asserted in para 6 of his writ application that on 2.6.2008 he was finally allocated State of Jharkhand and joined on 26.11.2008. Dealing with the same, State of Jharkhand in Para 5 of its counter affidavit states that it has no specific comments to offer. Contrary to the same, the submission that has been made on behalf of the State of Jharkhand before this Court was that the petitioner was never finally allocated State of Jharkhand. That appears to be contrary to the recitals contained in the list of allocation dated 2.6.2008. Counsel for the petitioner has very fairly acknowledged that in view of his reallocation to the State of Bihar he shall not raise issues of pay protection before the State of Bihar in the event that he is granted revised pay scale in the State of Jharkhand. The Court may only observe that it has not the benefit of the fresh final order passed by the State Advisory Committee reallocating the State of Bihar to the petitioner. No counter affidavit has been filed by the State of Bihar. Let the State of Jharkhand now consider his claim for the revised pay scale as per recommendation of the Fitment Committee, for the period that he actually and substantively worked in the State of Jharkhand consequent to the final allocation and before his reallocation in accordance with law within a maximum period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The petitioner is held not entitled to the latter relief on basis of any deemed date of final allocation to the State of Jharkhand. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.) 4