IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
Cont. Case (C) No. 760 of 2009
...
Lal Babu Singh ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sri Amarendra Pratap Singh, Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. ... Opposite Parties.
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - M/s. M. Tewari, J. S. Pandey, P. Lala
and Anjana Kumari, Advocates.
For the Respondent-State of Jharkhand : - J.C. to G.P. I.
For the Respondent-State of Bihar : - J.C. to G.A. (Bihar).
...
3/13.01.2010
From the show-cause replies filed by the Respondents/Opposite Party-State of
Bihar, annexing thereto the letter vide Memo (Annexure-A), dated-31.12.2009, passed by
the Director, Animal Husbandry Department, it appears that the representation filed by the
petitioner before the Respondent No. 3 was duly considered and a decision thereon has been
taken in as much as, the Respondent-State of Bihar has no objection to the grant of the
petitioner’s prayer for allotment of Jharkhand cadre to him and, in fact, a recommendation in
this regard has already been forwarded to the State Advisory Committee by the Respondent
No. 2 and it is for the State Advisory Committee to take an appropriate decision on the
petitioner’s representation in the light of the no objection declared by the Respondent-State
of Bihar.
On perusal of the directions contained in the impugned order
dated-26.02.2009 passed in W.P. (S) No. 733 of 2008, it appears that though the
Respondents including the Respondent-Union of India were directed to pass an appropriate
order on the petitioner’s representation in the context of his prayer for allotment of the
Jharkhand cadre to him, the petitioner was directed to file his representation in the office of
the Respondent No. 3, namely, the Secretary, State Advisory Committee. It appears that in
spite of the representation filed by the petitioner before the Respondent No.3, the final
decision on the petitioner’s representation is yet to be taken by the State Advisory
Committee.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is deemed that the directions
contained in the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ application has been complied
with by the Respondent No. 3. However, the State Advisory Committee, referred to as the
Respondent No. 8 in the original writ application, shall take an appropriate decision on the
petitioner’s representation in the light of the directions contained in this Court’s order,
passed in W.P. (S) No. 733 of 2008 and communicate such decision to the petitioner within
three months from the date of this order. There being no further need for retaining this
Contempt application on board, the same is accordingly, dropped.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
APK