Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand which upheld a Single Judge's direction to the State of Bihar to accept the first respondent as its employee on transfer from the State of Jharkhand. The first respondent was appointed as an Ayurvedic Medical Officer in the erstwhile State of Bihar on 26 May 1989. After the Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000 bifurcated the state into Bihar and Jharkhand, the respondent initially opted for Bihar but was allocated to Jharkhand on 9 February 2007. He joined Jharkhand on 22 March 2007. In 2010, he sought re-allocation to Bihar, which was acceded to by both states, and formal orders were issued on 6 September 2010. However, the respondent was not relieved by Jharkhand despite his application on 6 October 2010. He continued to work in Jharkhand for seven years and retired on 30 April 2017. Just before retirement, he filed a writ petition seeking directions to be relieved and accepted by Bihar. The Single Judge allowed the petition, and the Division Bench affirmed. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's orders. The Court noted that the respondent took no steps to enforce his rights under the re-allocation order for seven years, even after being informed by Bihar on 12 October 2015 that no vacancy existed. The Court held that it would be inappropriate to direct absorption after retirement, as the respondent had worked in Jharkhand until superannuation and failed to pursue legal remedies. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - State Reorganization - Re-allocation of Employees - Laches - The respondent employee was allocated to the State of Bihar on 6 September 2010 but continued to work in the State of Jharkhand until retirement on 30 April 2017 without pursuing legal remedies to enforce his re-allocation - The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in directing absorption after retirement, as the employee failed to take timely action and the State of Bihar had no vacancies - Held that the employee must bear the blame for not pursuing remedies (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an employee who continued to work in one successor state for seven years after re-allocation to another state, and retired from the former, can be directed to be absorbed by the latter state after retirement.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 5 November 2018, and dismissed the writ petition. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Re-allocation of employees after state reorganization
- Laches and delay in seeking relief
- Effect of continued service in one state after allocation to another
Case Details
Civil Appeal No. 5709 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 5485 of 2019)
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee
Mr. Devashish Bharuka (for appellant), Mr. Manoj Tandon (for respondent)
Dr Chaitraya Kumar Singh & Ors
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against High Court judgment directing State of Bihar to accept employee on transfer from State of Jharkhand.
Remedy Sought
The respondent sought a direction to the State of Jharkhand to relieve him and to the State of Bihar to accept his joining.
Filing Reason
The respondent was not relieved by Jharkhand despite re-allocation to Bihar, and he continued to work in Jharkhand until retirement.
Previous Decisions
Single Judge of Jharkhand High Court allowed the writ petition; Division Bench upheld the order in Letters Patent Appeal.
Issues
Whether the High Court erred in directing absorption of the respondent by the State of Bihar after he had retired from the State of Jharkhand.
Whether the respondent's delay in pursuing legal remedies disentitles him to relief.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant: No vacancy in Bihar; respondent continued to work in Jharkhand for seven years and retired; he was informed in 2015 that no vacancy existed; he sought relief only on verge of retirement to get higher retirement age.
Respondent: Re-allocation order of 6 September 2010 was never withdrawn; he made efforts to join Bihar but was not relieved by Jharkhand; he had no option but to continue in Jharkhand.
Ratio Decidendi
An employee who continues to work in one successor state for seven years after re-allocation to another state, and retires from the former, cannot be directed to be absorbed by the latter state after retirement, especially when the employee failed to pursue legal remedies in time and the latter state has no vacancies.
Judgment Excerpts
The first respondent must, take the blame for not having pursued remedies available to him under the law to ensure that the State of Jharkhand issued an order relieving him so as to join the State of Bihar.
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 be manifestly inappropriate to direct that he should be absorbed by the State of Bihar.
Procedural History
The respondent filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court on 31 July 2017 (just before retirement). Single Judge allowed the petition on 5 November 2018. Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal on the same date. State of Bihar appealed to Supreme Court by special leave. Supreme Court granted leave and allowed the appeal on 19 July 2019.
Acts & Sections
- Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000:
