IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15223 of 2011 1. Arun Kumar Thakur S/O Late Dr. V.N. Thakur, Resident of 51/84, Officer's Flat, New Punaichak, P.S.-Shastri Nagar, Patna-23. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Main Secretariat, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Main Secretariat, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Chairman, Bureau of Public Enterprises, (Department of Finance), Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, New Secretariat, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 6. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Main Secretariat, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 7. The Managing Director, Bihar State Pharmaceutical and Chemical Development Corporation, Maurya Lok, A, Patna. ---------------------------------- 05. 09.12.2011 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Corporation. There is a very limited prayer which has been made in the present writ application on behalf of the petitioner, i.e. to absorb him in Government service in the given set of facts. Despite a long drawn service career which the petitioner has had starting from a Government Corporation known as Bihar State Pharmaceutical and Chemical Development Corporation as far back as in the year 1987 and his continuance with the State Government on deputation from the year 1999 initially in the Department of Institutional Finance and Programme Implementation and now having 2 merged into the Department of Finance w.e.f. 7.8.2007, his case though proposed has not attained finality. Petitioner has worked on deputation, is not the issue at all but he prays for a direction upon the respondents to take some decision with regard to his absorption in the State Government in the background that many a persons who has had origin in a State sponsored Corporation have come to be absorbed by the State Government over a period of time because those corporations having run into bad days. Attention of this Court has been drawn to a proposal prepared for the State Cabinet by the then Additional Commissioner, Finance as far back as on 20th August, 2008 for retention or merger of the service of this petitioner along with two other persons coming from other corporation on a permanent basis under the State. But that proposal has still remained pending for consideration of the State Government without any final opinion expressed or a decision having been taken in this regard. Petitioner only wants a direction now that a final opinion or decision be taken taking into consideration that the petitioner has spent his life, a major part of it working for the State, may be on deputation and is inching towards superannuation in a couple of months’ time. The stand of the State is that the petitioner does not have a right for absorption and in this regard the decision 3 rendererd by the Hon`ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi has been pressed into service. With due respect to the State the absurdity of the stand is evident from such proposition because petitioner is not looking for regularization under the State having worked as a daily wager but he is substantively appointed employee of a State Corporation and he was deputed to work under the State in its department and that he has continued in that capacity for a long period of time. The petitioner cannot be asked to go back to a corporation which is now defunct and for all purposes does not exist except on paper and therefore, demand made by him for absorption under the State cannot be said to be unreasonable expectation or a claim upon the respondent State. The Court has no hesitation therefore in recording that the stand taken by the State in the counter affidavit is not only arbitrary and unreasonable but contrary to the basic ethos of a welfare State. Since there are materials on record to show that there was proposal initiated and the same has not reached any finality by placing it before the Cabinet or the appropriate authority for a final decision, this writ application can be disposed of with a categorical direction upon the respondents especially Principal Secretary, Department of Finance as well as Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar that the claim of the petitioner be placed for consideration before the Cabinet 4 within a reasonable time frame and a final decision be taken and communicated to the petitioner on this count. There could be some kind of urgency involved taking into consideration that the petitioner is set to retire on 31st January, 2012. Writ is disposed of with above direction. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)