- (1.) The petitioner was working as Sub Divisional Officer in the Beas Sutlej Link Project when the re-organisation of the Punjab State took place with effect from November 1, 1966, as a result of which he was allocated to the State of Haryana. He was recalled from the Beas Project by the Haryana Government vide letter dated December 3, 1970, with a view to retiring him from service as he had attained age of 55 years. In pursuance of that letter, he was transferred back to the State of Haryana and, after he had assumed charge in that State, A notice dated November 12, 1970, was served on him on January 11, 1971, informing him that he retire would service after the expiry of three months from the date of service of the notice. The petitioner then filed the present petition in which he has challenged the order of Haryana State Government retiring him from service and the order of respondent 3 transferring him to the State of Haryana in pursuance of letter dated December 3, 1970.
(2.) Written statements have been filed by respondents 2 and 3 in which both the orders have been justified.
(3.) The case is covered by my judgment in Ram Saran Dass v. The Union of India and others, C.W 1150 of 1969, decided on January 7, 1971, and a Division Bench judgment (Mahajan and Koshal, JJ.,) in B.D. Gupta v. The State of Haryana and another,1970 CurLJ 59. The learned Judges of the Division Bench expressed their full agreement with the view I expressed in Amrit Rai Sood v. The State of Punjab and others,1970 SLR 170, which is reproduced below :- "According to the proviso to sub-section 3 of Section 80 (of the Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966), every person who was working in the construction of any work relating to the Beas Project was to continue as such in the service of the Board on the same terms and conditions as were applicable to him before the constitution of the Board and the Board had the power to send back any employee to the State Government or the Electricity Board in whose service he was prior to coming into the service of the Board in consultation with that Government or the Electricity Board and with the prior approval of the Central Government. It is thus clear that the State Government cannot ask for an employee to be returned to it without the consent of the Board and without obtaining the prior approval of the Central Government. The appointing authority in respect of the employees of the Beas Project is the Beas Construction Board and no more the State Government. For these reasons, the Chief Engineer, Drainage, Irrigation Works, had no jurisdiction to issue the order dated 25th of March, 1968." The learned Judges of the Division Bench, after approving the above view, observed as follows :- "The first proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Act makes it further clear that persons engaged in the construction or any work concerning the Beas Project immediately before the constitution of the Board shall be continued to be controlled by the Board. Furthermore, the second proviso, far from placing any limitation on the power of the Board, enables it to send back any of its employees to the Government concerned but no discretion is given by that proviso or by any other provisions of the Act to the State Government concerned to recall any such employee. A limitation is no doubt placed on the power of the Board to return an employee to the State Government but that limitation is only to the effect that before such a return is ordered, the State Government concerned should be ordered, the State Government concerned should be consulted and the previous approval of the Central Government obtained. That limitation can certainly not be construed to mean that any right vests in the State Government concerned to recall its employees or to deal with them otherwise before their return in compliance with the terms of the second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Act for service under that Government. In view of the interpretation put by us on the provisions of Section 80 of the Act, we hold that the petitioner is an employee of the Board over whom respondent No. 1 has no control till he is returned for service under the Haryana Government in accordance with the second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Act." On the basis two judgments, I decided the case of Ram Saran Dass , in his favour and quashed the order of his transfer from the Beas Project to the State of Haryana and further order of his retirement from service as in the present case.;