Allowed

Lakshman Ram v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC26 Nov 2020CWJC/7231/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the deputation of two employees to COMFED against their wishes. The court held such deputation unsustainable, quashed the impugned order without prejudice, and granted liberty for the state to use their expertise elsewhere.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 29.06.2020 deputationing petitioners is quashed. Petitioners are sent on deputation against their wishes, quashed. Liberty granted to State for better utilization of expertise.

Lakshman Ram Vs The State of Bihar — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7231 of 2020

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Lakshman Ram Son of Late Bachu Ram Resident of Flat No. 101, Jagriti Apartment, Ramnagari, Ashiyana, P.S.- Ashiyana Nagar, District- Patna.

¶4

Ashok Kumar Son of Rajendra Prasad Resident of Jai Prakash Nagar, P.S.Jakanpur, District- Patna.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar Through the Secretary, Department of Animal and Fisheries Resources, Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Additional Secretary, Department of Animal and Fisheries Resources, Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The Special Secretary Department of Animal and Fisheries Resources, Bihar, Patna.

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

======================================================

¶12

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sajid Salim Khan, Advocate ======================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER

¶14

3 26-11-2020 Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the

¶15

petitioners and Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, learned counsel for the State.

¶16

In this case a counter affidavit has been filed on

¶17

behalf of the respondents. Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that the decision to utilize the services of the petitioners was taken having regard to the expertise with no prejudice to the petitioner as the petitioner would be extended all the benefits which is otherwise admissible to them in the department.

¶18

Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.7231 of 2020(3) dt.26-11-2020 2/2

¶20

petitioners submits that the petitioners are not interested in working with COMFED. They are happy with their establishment where they are working and they cannot be sent on deputation against their wishes. The law in this regard is well settled that a person cannot be sent on deputation outside the cadre against his wishes.

¶21

In view of the above, the order dated 29.06.2020, as contained in Annexure-1 cannot sustain. It is, accordingly, quashed. However, liberty shall be available to the respondents to take appropriate steps for better utilization of the expert people for the development of the dairy project.

¶22

The writ petition is allowed and disposed of.

¶23

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J)

¶24

spandey/-

¶25

Lakshman Ram v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshman Ram v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhanu Pratap Singh Vs the State of Bihar

Anarjeet Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Vishal Yadav @ Vishal Kumar Yadav @ Bishal Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Satrughan Prasad Yadav, Vs The State of Bihar

Anil Sah @ Anil Kumar Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Rohit Kumar @ Tinku Kumar Vs The State of Bihar