@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
J.N. Singh, J.@mdashIt appears that earlier the petitioner''s services were allocated to Jharkhand State against his option to continue in Bihar. Petitioner filed representations for reconsideration of his case, but the same remained pending, However, he was also, not relieved and was allowed to continue. From Annexure-8, it appears that a High Level Committee of the officials of the State of Bihar deliberated and resolved on 28.6.2006 that the employees who were allocated to a State against their option shall be eligible to apply for staying in their State, if they were ready to forego their seniority. Pursuant to this decision, petitioner applied giving an undertaking that he was ready to forego his seniority and abide by other, conditions, if he was allowed to continue in Bihar. This representation of the petitioner also remained pending. Hence, he moved this Court through CWJC No. 4478 of 2007. The said writ application was disposed of by order dated 24.9.2007, as contained in Annexure-9, noticing the submissions on behalf of the petitioner and with a direction that the representation of the petitioner should be considered in the light of the resolution of the said High Level Committee and till the disposal of the representation petitioner was not to be relieved for joining in Jharkhand State. Petitioner produced the said orders of this Court before the concerned respondent through a representation.
2. From Annexure-12, it appears that as late as on 25.12.2009 the Home (Special) Department also issued a press communique in the light of and on the lines of the decisions of the said High Level Committee. Thus, it is apparent that the respondents were continuing with the policy decision that employees will be allowed to continue or return to their parent State, if they were ready to forego their seniority and abide by other conditions. Petitioner accordingly, again submitted an application to the Chief Controller of Accounts, vide Annexure-13, which was forwarded by the Chief Controller of Accounts to the Home (Special) Department, vide Annexure-14 dated 16.4.2010. It appears that, in the meanwhile, the Home (Special) Department came to know that a large numbers of employees were continuing in their parent departments in spite of orders of allocation of their services to Jharkhand State. Hence, a general order contained in letter no. 1036 dated 3.2.2011, annexed as Annexure-16 with the writ application, alongwith which list of such employees was also enclosed, was issued directing the controlling officers of the employees to relieve the said employees positively by 28.2.2011. The name of the petitioner was in this list. Hence, he has filed this writ application challenging the same.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had submitted his request to continue in Bihar in the light of the said decisions of the High Level Committee, as contained in Annexure-8, and the press communique, as contained in Annexure-12. He had given clear undertaking in his representation that he is ready to forego his seniority and abide by other conditions. This Court had also noticed the said offer by the Bihar State to its employees and had directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner filed in response to the said offer and had stayed his relieving in the meanwhile. Learned counsel submits that the Jharkhand State has also given its no objection, vide Annexure-17, in continuance of the petitioner in the Bihar itself. He submits that, in the circumstances, the respondents were required to consider the application of the petitioner in the light of the policy decision and were required to allow him to continue in the Bihar. He submits that in any case since the specific orders of this Court earlier was to allow the petitioner to continue till his representation was considered and orders were passed, petitioner cannot be disturbed till specific order in his respect, in the light of the orders of this Court, is passed.
4. Although no counter affidavit has been filed in the case, but learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submits that the allocation of services of the petitioner was made to Jharkhand State long back. Due to some reasons at the level of his controlling officer the petitioner continued and was not relieved. He submits that there was no specific order staying the said allocation of the services of the petitioner to Jharkhand State. Therefore, the controlling officer was required to relieve the petitioner long back for joining and to submit his joining in Jharkhand State. This was not done and the petitioner continued in the State on his post without there being any valid stay orders. He also submits that a large number of such cases were detected by the Home (Special) Department where, in spite of valid orders of the allocation of services, the employees had continued. Hence, the said Annexure-16 was issued to all the Controlling Officers and Head of the Departments with the list of such employees, with a positive direction to relieve them. Petitioner''s case was also covered by such situation and therefore his name was also included in the list enclosed with said Annexure-16. He also submits that by the said communication all pending cases of such employees and their pending representations stood disposed of and all stay orders passed by any authority stood vacated. The order was also to apply to other similarly situated employees although not named in the list enclosed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submits that even though there was no stay from before, but this Court had directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, in the light of the resolution of the High Level Committee and, till the disposal of his representation filed in terms of the said policy decision he was not to be relieved. He submits that the respondents have passed orders of re-allocation of employees as late as in December, 2010 which is evident from Annexure-20 series.
6. Learned counsel for the Jharkhand State submits that the Jharkhand State has already given its no objection in reallocation of services of the petitioner to Bihar.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is clear that by Annexure-8, the decision of the High Level Committee and by the press communique, as contained in Annexure-12, issued as late as in December, 2009, the respondent State of Bihar had given an option to its employees, whose services were allocated to the Jharkhand State, to apply for their re-allocation in Bihar State under certain conditions which included loss of their seniority. The employees were at liberty to apply in terms of the same, and, if any such application was received by the authorities of the State of Bihar, they were obliged to consider the same and, if the said offer of the employee fulfilled all the conditions contained in the said policy decision, they were obliged to accept the same and re-allocate the services of the employees to Bihar State. Secondly, this Court had directed the respondents to consider such representation of the petitioner filed before them and till then the relieving of the petitioner was stayed. Hence, clearly the case of the petitioner did not come within the purview of the general order, as contained in Annexure-16. In the light of the orders passed by this Court, the respondents were obliged to consider the representation of the petitioner separately and in terms of the orders of this Court which admittedly they have not done.
8. In the circumstances, this Court holds that the general order, as contained in letter no. 1036 dated 3.2.2011, annexed as Annexure-16, does not apply in the case of the petitioner. The petitioner''s case is required to be considered separately by the respondents in terms of the earlier orders of this Court and in the light of the said policy decision, as contained in Annexure-8, and reiterated by Annexure-12, and, if he fulfils all terms and condition of that policy decision, they are required to pass orders accordingly on his application for re-allocation of his services to Bihar State. Since this Court has already passed orders restraining the respondents from relieving the petitioner till final orders are passed on his representation which admittedly has not been passed, the said order shall continue till final orders are passed by the respondents as pointed out above.
9. As a result, this writ application is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.
