IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4240 of 2010 1. SUDHIR KUMAR TIWARI S/O SRI BHARAT TIWARI, PRESENTLY POSTED AS ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, SARAIKELA-KHARSWAN, DISTT.- SARAIKELA- KHARSAWAN, STATE-JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE STATE JHARKHAND THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ----------- 02. 01.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State of Bihar and learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner was working in the erstwhile unified State of Bihar. Departmental proceedings were started against him. Consequent to the re- organization of the State and allocation of the Cadre, he carried a litigious burden of the proceedings to the State of Jharkhand from where he superannuated and as now come back to the State of Bihar in his days of retirement. The final order of punishment passed in the proceedings by the State of Jharkhand was of warning only. He now seeks the relief of shifting of his date of promotion consequent to his case having considered under sealed cover and that warning was not a punishment. In normal circumstances, this Court would have upheld the objection of the State of Jharkhand 2 that the writ petition should have been appropriately instituted in that State. But keeping in mind that the re-organization of the State was a historic event, it brought its own problems and travails for the employees, part of the cause of action has arisen within the re-organized State of Bihar and more particularly that the petitioner has now superannuated and has limited source of income from his pension only, the Court is not persuaded that justice shall be done to the petitioner, if he is now asked to travel to the State of Jharkhand on his own expenses with meager resources to seek relief from the Court. This Court therefore proceeds to entertain the writ petition only on the peculiar facts of the present case. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand do not dispute the submission that warning was not a punishment. In that event the only appropriate order to be passed now is that whatever promotional benefits have been denied to the petitioner in view of the pendency of the departmental proceedings whether by the State of Bihar or whether by the State of Jharkhand is required to be re-considered and such benefits granted from the date that his juniors may have been benefited. Let the petitioner submit his representation both to the State of Bihar and to the 3 State of Jharkhand separately detailing his claim for respective promotion which is then required to be considered and disposed off expeditiously respectively within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of such order along with representations. It shall be obligatory for the petitioner to enclose a copy of his representation given to the State of Jharkhand along with his representation given to the State of Bihar and vice-a-versa. It is expected that, if the State of Bihar and/or State of Jharkhand find justification in the claims of the petitioner or any part of the claim, necessary consequential benefits shall be made available within like period, and if any part of the claim is to be denied a reasoned and speaking order shall be passed within the same period. The application stands disposed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)