G H STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. versus DR. CHAITRAYA KUMAR SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 9 S.C.R. 1060 · Decided: 19-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1060
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
v.
DR. CHAITRAYA KUMAR SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.5709 of 2019)
JULY 19, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Service Law: Transfer – Re-organisation of two States –
Bifurcation of erstwhile State into the State of Bihar and the State of
Jharkhand – First respondent-Medical Officer initially allocated
to the State of Jharkhand – After three years on request by
respondent, allocation made to State of Bihar with mutual approval
of both States – However, the respondent continued to work as
employee of State of Jharkhand till he attained the age of
superannuation – Writ petition filed by respondent few days before
his superannuation, seeking issuance of directions to the State of
Jharkhand to relieve him for joining the State of Bihar – High Court
issued direction to State of Bihar to issue orders for accepting the
first respondent as its employee on transfer from State of Jharkhand
– Upheld by the Division Bench – On appeal, held: First respondent
took no steps to pursue his legal remedies when he was aggrieved
by the decision of the State of Jharkhand not to relieve him from
service so as to enable him to join the State of Bihar – He did not
espouse his rights and remedies under the law by seeking recourse
to the reliefs available at that stage, rather continued to work for
the State of Jharkhand for seven years and retired from service on
30 April 2017 – Order of the Government of Jharkhand relieving
him on 31 July 2017 after his superannuation, is of no consequence
– Having now attained the age of superannuation in the State of
Jharkhand, the State to which he was originally assigned and where
despite the order of re-allocation the respondent worked for seven
years, it would not be appropriate to direct that he should be
absorbed by the State of Bihar – Thus, the High Court
erred in issuing the directions and the order of the High
Court set aside.
[2019]  9 S.C.R. 1060
1060
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1061
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.5709 of
2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.11.2018 of the  High Court
of  Jharkhand at Ranchi in L.P.A. No. 197 of 2018
Devashish Bharuka, Ravi Bharuka, Ms. Sarvshree, Justine George,
Aditya Singhal,  Akshay Amritanshu, Advs. for the Appellants.
Kumar Shivan, Manoj Tandon, Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, Advs. for
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the
High Court of Jharkhand by which a direction that was issued by the
learned Single Judge to the State of Bihar to issue orders “for accepting
the first respondent as its employee on transfer from the State of
Jharkhand” has been upheld.
3. The first respondent was appointed as an Ayurvedic Medical
Officer on 26 May 1989 in  the  erstwhile  State  of  Bihar  prior to its
reorganization.  On  15  November 2000, the Bihar Re-organisation Act
resulted in the bifurcation of the erstwhile State into  the State of Bihar
and the State of Jharkhand. Options were invited from the employees
for allocation of their services to either of the resulting States. The first
respondent opted for the State of Bihar.
4. The Union government issued  certain guidelines on 8 June
2006 which envisaged that even after final allocations, employees could
be posted to either of the succeeding States with the mutual consent of
both States. On 9 February 2007, the Union government  allocated  the
first  respondent to the State of Jharkhand upon  which  the  Government
of Bihar in the Department of Welfare issued a notification on 27 February
2007 requiring the first respondent to join the State of Jharkhand.  On 22
March 2007, the first respondent joined the State of Jharkhand and was
posted as an Ayurvedic Medical Officer in District Simdega.
5. On  11 January  2010, the first respondent made  an  application
for his re-allocation to the State of Bihar.  Both the States acceded to
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. v.  DR. CHAITRAYA KUMAR
SINGH & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1062
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
the  request and on 30 July 2010, the  first  respondent  was  allocated  to
the  State  of  Bihar. Consequently, on 6 September 2010, the Home
Department in the Government of Bihar issued formal orders allocating
the services of the respondent to the State of Bihar.
6. The grievance of the first  respondent  is  that  though  he
subm

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.