PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR JHA versus STA TE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 215 · Decided: 24-04-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PURUSHOTT AM KUMAR JHA 
v. 
STA TE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. 
APRIL 24, 2006 
B 
[MRS. RUMA PAL AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000-Sections 72 and 74-Appointment of 
employee as a Clerk by erstwhile State of Bihar on compassionate grounds-
Transfer of employee to the State of Jharkand after bifurcation of the States- C 
Employee protesting to do the work of a Clerk contending that he was 
originally appointed as Law Officer/Legal Assistant-Order of compulsory 
retirement passed against the employee by the State of Jharkand after holding 
disciplinary proceedings-Writ petition filed before High Court challenging 
the order-Employee contending that the State of Jharkhand has not power D 
and jurisdiction under the Act to· take action; and that the action of the State 
was mala fide-High Court dismissed the Writ Petitio~orrectness of-
Held, the State of Jharkhand was competent to take action against the · 
employee under the Act-On facts, the employee was appointed as Clerk 
since there was no sanctioned post of Law Officer/Legal Assistant-Allegation 
of male fide action by the State was vague without any materials on record E 
-Order of compulsory retirement passed against the employee is not illegal 
or arbitrary. 
Appellant, who was a practising advocate, was appointed as a Field Clerk 
by the State of Bihar on compassionate grounds following the death of his F 
father. After the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar under the Bihar 
Reorganisation Act, 2000, the appellant was transferred to the State of 
Jharkhand. Since the appellant was given clerical work, the appellant made 
several representations to respondents contending that he had worked as Law 
Officer/Legal Assistant from the date of joining and that he should not be 
compelled to do clerical work. The State of Jharkand withdrew the clerical G 
work from the appellant and passed an order suspending him. Departmental 
Enquiry was initiated against the appellant. The appellant was found guilty 
and an order of compulsory retirement from service was passed. 
215 
H 
216 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
The appellant filed Writ Petition before High Court challenging the 
order of compulsory retirement passed by the respondents. Single Judge of 
the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition of the appellant. Letters Patent 
Appeal preferred before the Division Bench of the High Court by the appellant 
was also dismissed. 
B 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that he had worked as 
Law Officer/Legal Assistant from the date of joining the service and that the 
action of the respondents was illegal in treating him as a Clerk; that the action 
of the respondents was illegal under Section 72 of the Bihar Reorganization 
Act, 2000 in transferring him to the State of Jharkhand; that the State of 
C Jharkand had no power and jurisdiction to order compulsory retirement since 
he was originally appointed by the State of Bihar; that the actions of the 
respondents in initially not allowing him to join and thereafter depriving him 
of even the clerical work was ma/a fide with oblique motive to punish him; 
and that he was not given either any notice or any opportunity to defend himself 
and hence the action of the respondents in passing the order of compulsory 
D retirement was violative of the principles of natural justice. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. I. On the basis of Sections 72 and 74 of the Bihar 
Reorganisation Act, 2000, the Division Bench held that the action of the 
E respondents in transferring the appellant to the State of Jharkhand as Clerk 
could not be held illegal, unlawful or otherwise improper. The appellant was 
serving in and posted within the territory forming part of State of Jharkhand 
as per the order passed by the Central Government provisionally. The State 
of Jharkhand, therefore, was competent to initiate proceedings against the 
F appellant which was done and no fault can be found in the said action of the 
State of Jharkhand. 1223-E-F] 
1.2. On the basis of documentary evidence, the High Court recorded a 
finding that the appellant was appointed as a Clerk on compassionate ground. 
The appellant was never appointed as Legal Assistant/Law Officer. From the 
G affidavits filed by the respondents, it is clear that there is no sanctioned post 
of Law officer/Legal Assistant and clerks use to get information relating to 
pending cases of the Department in the High Court and other

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