BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. versus RAM DEO PRASAD SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 11 S.C.R. 249 · Decided: 08-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011) 11 S.C.R. 249 
BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. 
v. 
RAM DEO PRASAD SINGH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7754 of 2011) 
SEPTEMBER 08, 2011 
[AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 - s. 89 - Transfer of 
pending proceedings - Respondent working at Thermal 
Power Station, Hazaribagh dismissed from service - Suit filed 
C 
by respondent after four years before Munsif, Patna seeking 
declaration that dismissal was bad and inoperative in law -
Suit allowed by the trial court - First appellate court by 
judgment dated 18. 1. 2006 upheld the said order- Patna High 
Court also upheld the order - On appeal, held: Suit filed by D 
the respondent was not maintainable - On bifurcation of State 
of Bihar with effect from 15. 11. 2000, the appointed date under 
the Reorganisation Act, Thermal Power Station Hazaribagh 
which was earlier part of State of Bihar, forms part of the newly 
created State of Jharkhand - Transfer of proceedings in terms 
E 
of s. 89 was to take place by operation of law - First appellate 
court as also the Patna High Court had no jurisdiction to hear 
and decide the matters - Patna High Court lost sight of fact 
that it was affirming a decree that was no longer executable 
in the State of Bihar- Jharkhand State Electricity Board came 
F 
into existence on April 1, 2001 - Thereafter, Bihar State -
Electricity Board could not reinstate the respondents as 
security guards at Thermal Power Station, Hazaribagh where 
they were working at the time of dismissal- Respondent 
working as sec·urity guard at the Thermal Power Station, 
G 
Hazaribagh were workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act 
-
They could raise industrial disputes concerning their 
dismissal from service - Thus, the judgment passed by first 
appellate court as also Patna High Court was illegal and 
without jurisdiction - Judgment and decree under challenge 
249 
H 
250 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 11 S.C.R. 
A are set aside and suit is dismissed - Industrial Disputes Act, 
1947. 
In the year 1975, respondents working as ·~ecurity 
guards at Patratu Thermal Power Station, Hazaribagh, 
8 were dismissed from service, on charges of misconduct. 
After four years, the respondents filed a suit in the court 
of Munsiff, Patna, seeking declarations that their 
dismissal was bad, unconstitutional and inoperative in 
law and they would be legally deemed to have continued 
C in service. The trial court allowed. the suit. The appellants 
filed an appeal and the Additional District Judge 
dismissed the same by or~er dated 18.01.2006. The High 
Court also dismissed the second appeal. Therefore, the 
appellants filed the instant appeal. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The district of Hazaribagh, where Patratu 
Thermal Power Station is situated, was earlier part of the 
State of Bihar but on bifurcation of the State with effect 
E from November 15, 2000, the appointed date under the 
Reorganisation Act it forms part of the newly created 
State-Jharkhand. From a bare reading of Section 89 of the 
Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, it is evident that on the 
appointed date the appeal preferred against the judgment 
F and decree passed by the Munsiff stood transferred to a 
corresponding court in the State of Jharkhand. The 
transfer of the appeal took place by operation of law and 
the Additional District Judge, Patna was denuded of all 
authority and jurisdiction to proceed with the matter or 
to hear and decide the appeal. It follows equally that the 
G Patna High Court had no jurisdiction to hear and decide 
the second appeal arising from the suit. Thus, in view of 
section 89 of the judgments of th.e High Court and the 
first appellate court appear to be manifestly illegal and 
without jurisdiction. [Para 4) [254-A-B; 255-C-E] 
H 
• 
BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. v. RAM 251 
DEO PRASAD SINGH & ORS. 
' 
1.2 The judgment passed by the first appellate court A 
was illegal and without jurisdiction and the judgment and 
order passed by the Patna High Court is equally without 
jurisdiction. It is quite strange the High Court lost sight 
of the fact that it was affirming a decree that was no 
longer executable or enforceable in the State of Bihar. 
B 
Section 62 of the Re-organisation Act contains 
provisions relating to Bihar State Electricity Board 
besides two other Corporations. In terms of sub-section 
3 of section 62, Jharkhand State Electricity Board came 
into existence on April 1, 2001. After that date i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.