Allowed

Rameshwar Kamti v. The Bihar State Beverage Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Patna HC23 Jan 2015CWJC/13491/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order repatriating a deputed employee to a non-functional organization. The Court held that repatriation under such circumstances amounted to termination of service and impugned the order as procedurally flawed due to lack of an opportunity to explain alleged misconduct.

What did the court decide?

The order repatriating the petitioner was quashed. Liberty granted to respondents to take action as per law.

Rameshwar Kamti Vs The Bihar State Beverage… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

Patna High Court CWJC No.13491 of 2013 dt.23-01-2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶3

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13491 of 2013

¶4

=========================================================== Rameshwar Kamti S/o Late Suraj Kamti, resident of village and P.O- Simra, P.S- Jhanjharpur, District- Madhubani.

¶5

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Bihar State Beverage Corporation Ltd., through its Managing Director, Vidyut Bhawan, 1st Floor, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Patna-1 2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Beverages Corporation Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, 1st Floor, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Patna-1

¶8

The General Manager, Bihar State Beverages Corporation Ltd., Human Resources and Administration, Vidyut Bhawan, 1st Floor, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Patna-1

¶9

.... .... Respondent/s

¶10

=========================================================== Appearance :

¶11

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. BIPIN BIHARI SINGH For the Respondent/s : Mr. GIRIJISH KUMAR

¶12

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT

¶13

Date: 23-01-2015

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶15

counsel for the Corporation.

¶16

In this case, the petitioner was originally employee of the Bihar State Co-operative Spinning Mill, Pandaul, situated at Madhubani and that organization in course of time became nonfunctional was not paying any salary to its employees.

¶17

The Government of Bihar has taken a policy decision that the employees of such Corporation, for their survival be accommodated in terms of deputation in functional organisations.

¶18

In terms of the policy decision, the State Government

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.13491 of 2013 dt.23-01-2015

¶20

published an advertisement on 16^th December 2006 inviting applications from the eligible persons who can be deputed in running organization of State of Bihar.

¶21

The petitioner applied for his accommodation by way of deputation in the functional organization and after due process, he was by way of deputation accommodated in Bihar State Beverage Corporation. He remained there for seven years and thereafter, he was ordered to be repatriated vide Memo No. 2114 dated 24^th May 2013.

¶22

Claim has been made by the petitioner that repatriating him to Bihar State Co-operative Spinning Mill, Pandaul which is not functional, amounts to termination of his service and relied on a judgment of this Court passed in CWJC No. 10016 of 2007 (Annexure 5 to this application) by which this Court has held that the repatriation to the original non-functional organization will amount to termination of service and this Court has not approved the order of repatriation and set aside the same.

¶23

A counter affidavit has been filed by the Corporation where it has been mentioned that the petitioner was not keeping a good character and activity which was informed by the Depot Manager vide letter dated 10^th May 2013 where it has been mentioned that the petitioner used take liquor and opium in the premises of Depot which led to passing of order of repatriation to the original

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.13491 of 2013 dt.23-01-2015

¶25

Corporation but the impugned order is silent with respect to nature of his conduct informed by the Depot Manager.

¶26

Submission has been made by the Corporation that it was not foundation but was a motive and has submitted that the person who is on deputation has no right to continue in the organization where he has been deputed and whenever there is no need of the employee, the organization has a right to return back the deputed employee to the original organisation. In support of his submission, he has relied on judgment reported in (1976) 4 SCC 52, (2000) 5 SCC 362 and 2002 (1) PLJR 707. The counsel for the Corporation has submitted that in the order of deputation, there is stipulation, the deputanist can be repatriated without prior notice.

¶27

Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, generally the deputationist has no right to continue in the organization where he has been deputed but in the present case the reason for accommodation on deputation was under scheme of his rehabilitation as has been held by this Court that repatriation of employee to a nonfunctional organization amounts to termination of his service, in that aspect of the matter though the impugned order does not show that the petitioner has been repatriated because he is not carrying a good character/behaviour while performing his duty on deputation but certainly from the counter affidavit it appears that the cause for his

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.13491 of 2013 dt.23-01-2015

¶29

repatriation is his conduct of not keeping good moral and character. The counter affidavit that has been filed by the Corporation itself shows the cause for his repatriation.

¶30

Normally, repatriating an employee does not have right to raise any grievance but in identical situation in CWJC No. 10088 of 2014 this Court has taken view that if the person is repatriated on the charge of misconduct, in that circumstance, it is necessary to observe the natural justice though may not be a strict sense of departmental enquiry but at least he should have been asked explanation about his conduct as reported by Depot Manager.

¶31

It appears from the record that the petitioner has been granted Grade A in ‘efficiency’, ‘sincerity’, ‘punctuality’ and ‘discipline’.

¶32

In this view of the matter, the order repatriating the petitioner is hereby quashed, the liberty is given to the Corporation, if so desired, the respondents may take action in accordance with law.

¶33

Accordingly, this petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

¶34

(Shivaji Pandey, J)

¶35

Mahesh/-

¶36

Rameshwar Kamti v. The Bihar State Beverage Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshwar Kamti v. The Bihar State Beverage Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjit Kumar Vs The Managing Director Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation and Ors.

Akhilesh Giri Vs The State Of Bihar

Lay Prakash Sharma Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Most. Shobha Devi Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Ors. Vs the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.

Hari Man Mohan Choudhary Vs The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors.