PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA Vs. ARUN KUMAR S/O SRI SHAMBHU NATH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present intra -Court appeal has been filed by the State in the Department of Panchayati Raj being aggrieved by the final order passed on 12.09.2011 in CWJC No 5884 of 2010 (Arun Kumar -Versus - State of Bihar & Others) whereby the writ petition, filed by the writ petitioner -appellant in this appeal, was allowed.

(2.) Let it be noted that in the writ proceedings, in spite of specific orders being passed for filing counter affidavit on behalf of Panchayati Raj Department, no steps were taken and a counter affidavit was filed by the Department of Agriculture alone. Patna High Court LPA No.274 of 2013 dt.30 -06 -2016

(3.) The grievance of the writ petitioner was that he was a permanent employee of the Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board. By virtue of the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market (Repealing) Act 2006, the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1960 was repealed in entirety. The validity of the Repealing Act was challenged before this Court by some of the employees. Its validity was upheld in view of provisions of Section 6 of the Repealing Act and the undertaking given to the Court by the Government that no employee would suffer. Section 6 of the Repealing Act provided that so far as employees, who were working under the Marketing Board at the time of its repeal, would continue to get the same remuneration and benefits which they were entitled to prior to the repeal till a suitable scheme for their absorption in Government Department or Corporation is finalized and they are absorbed therein. By virtue of this provision, the services of the writ petitioner was carried on under the Administrator of the Marketing Board after repeal and he received remuneration accordingly. Vide Memo No 2627 dated 07.09.2008, the Administrator of the Marketing Board, pursuant to Government decision, passed an order relieving, inter alia, the petitioner with effect from 08.09.2008 to join in the Rural Development Department in the Directorate of Panchayati Raj. The case of the writ petitioner was that he gave his joining before the Principal Secretary, Directorate of Panchayati Raj on 29.12.2008 but it was not entertained. He, thereafter, kept trying to join. His joining was not accepted. He ultimately filed the writ petition apprehending that if his joining was not accepted, he would superannuate on 30.06.2010 which would deprive not only of his interregnum salaries but other retiral dues. While the writ petition was pending, he again tried to join. He also represented to the Parent Department that is before the Agriculture Production Commissioner who also wrote to the Panchayati Raj to take a decision with regard to his joining. It was also indicated in that letter of the Agriculture Production Commissioner that writ petitioner had also moved the High Court and the writ petition was pending.