IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No.213 of 2010 Birendra Prasad ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others Respondents ------ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL HARKAULI ------ For the Petitioner: Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. S.P. Roy, G.A., Bihar Mr. Sr. S.C.1 ----- 03/31.03.2010
The impugned order dated 21.8.2009 has been passed by the
Government of Jharkhand canceling the pay slip of the petitioner. A copy of that
order is annexed as Annexure-1 to this writ petition. That order does not contain
any reasons. A counter affidavit has been filed mentioning that because the
petitioner’s appointment was illegal, hence he has been ordered to be
repatriated or transferred to the State of Bihar by a unilateral decision of the
Jharkhand Government and therefore, the continuance of the petitioner in the
State of Jharkhand is contrary to law and consequently the petitioner is not
entitled to the pay.
The counter affidavit was filed on 11.3.2010. Subsequently on 22.3.2010
certain persons, including the petitioner, filed W.P.S. No.1001 of 2010 in which
they obtained an interim order staying the unilateral decision of the Government
of Jharkhand to repatriate those persons, including the petitioner, to the State of
Bihar. For ready reference the order dated 22.03.2010 is quoted herein below:
“03/ 22.03.2010. Rejoinder may be filed within a month.
Office will trace out the counter-affidavit of the State which has been
filed today and place it on record.
From the petitioner’s side reliance has been placed upon a decision of this
Court in the Case of Ram Swarath Prasad vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
reported in 2002 (1) J.C.R. 106. The petitioners were appointed in 1987 in ad
hoc capacity and since then they have been working. At the time of bifurcation
of the State of Bihar, the petitioners were posted in the State of Jharkhand and
as such they continued to work here.
Now by the impugned decision which has been taken without an
opportunity of hearing being given to the petitioners, the State of Jharkhand has
unilaterally decided that the appointment of the petitioners were not valid and
accordingly has directed that they should go back to the State of Bihar.
According to the aforesaid decision of this Court, this power is not
available unilaterally to the State Government of Jharkhand. Accordingly, no
further action will be taken in pursuance to the repatriation order which is
under challenge. However, it will be open to the proper authorities having such
power to take a reasoned decision after issuing show-cause notices with regard
to the validity of the appointment or with regard to the final allocation of the
cadre in accordance with law.”
In view of the interim order, the reason given in the counter affidavit
looses its relevance.
Therefore, the Government of Jharkhand is directed to re-examine
its decision contained in letter dated 21.8.2009 by an appropriate reasoned
order to be passed within three weeks of the date on which a certified copy of
this order is presented before the respondent No.2 i.e. the Secretary, Finance,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
With the aforesaid directions this writ petition is disposed of.
(Sushil Harkauli, J.)