Petitioner, an Assistant Engineer allocated to Jharkhand under the Bihar Reorganization Act, claimed transfer to Bihar by mutual consent. Court held the Act lacks mutual transfer provisions, fixing the lien on Jharkhand.
Petition dismissed as devoid of merit; liability for retirement dues lies with the State of Jharkhand.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12322 of 2010 (3) dt.28-08-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12322 of 2010
====================================================== RAM KISHORE PRASAD (RETIRED ASSTT. ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPTT.) S/O LATE SHYAM NARAYAN PRASAD R/O 3/C, SHAKUNTALA GARDEN, PUNAICHAK (BALDEO BHAWAN ROAD), PATNA-23, P.S. AND P.O. SHASTRI NAGAR, PATNA, DISTT.- PATNA
.... .... PETITIONER/S VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
.... .... RESPONDENT/S ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sudhir Kr.Bijpuria For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Sc10)
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA VERMA ORAL ORDER
3 28-08-2012 Petitioner was holding a post of an Assistant Engineer in the erstwhile State of Bihar after the enforcement of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000. The petitioner, by virtue of the creation of State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand, was allocated State of Jharkhand by the Government under Section 72(2) and in compliance of this, he joined State of Jharkhand. The petitioner claimed that by mutual transfer he joined in the State of Bihar.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12322 of 2010 (3) dt.28-08-2012
There is no provision under the Bihar Reorganization Act, which is a Central Act, enabling the State Government to make such transfers by consent. Thus, the lien of the petitioner on the post in the State of Jharkhand was legal and whatever claim is due to him is payable by the State of Jharkhand after his retirement. The State of Bihar cannot foster with the liability contrary to the provisions of Bihar Reorganization Act.
Petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
(Prakash Chandra Verma, J)
Bhardwaj/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner allocated to State of Jharkhand under the Bihar Reorganization Act can claim transfer to State of Bihar by mutual consent.
Whether mutual transfer provisions are available under the Bihar Reorganization Act for a分配到 state employee.
Whether the State of Bihar can be held liable for a pettioner whose lien on a Jharkhand post was legally fixed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Kishore Prasad
State of Bihar through the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar
State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Water Resources Department
Superintending Engineer
Senior Account Officer
Senior Account Officer
Prakash Chandra Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
