- (1.) TODAY when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner informs that during the pendency of the writ application, in the year 2009, another order has been issued for repatriation of the services of the petitioner to BISCOMAN which is a subject matter of challenge in another writ application being WPS No. 205/10 which is pending before another Bench of this Court. It is also submitted that some date has been fixed in the said matter in the last week of June 2013.
(2.) IN the present case, the petitioner had come before this Court being aggrieved by an order of repatriation dated 28th April 2003 issued by the Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand whereby his services were returned to his parent department BISCOMAN. According to the petitioner, said order was however stayed by this Court vide interim order dated 6th May 2003. Various grounds have been raised on behalf of the petitioner that after his parent department BISCOMAN became sick because of severe financial constraints, on account of the decision taken by the Cooperative Department, Government of Bihar, the services of such employees like the petitioner were to be adjusted in different departments of Government of Bihar. It is further submitted that on requisition made by the Urban Development Department by letter dated 20th September 1994 (Annexure -3) specifically in respect of the petitioner and another person who were posted as Assistant Engineer in BISCOMAN, the services of the petitioner were deputed under the Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar. Thereafter, on bifurcation of the parent State of Bihar, the petitioner has been working under Ranchi Regional Development Authority (RRDA) as per the office order issued by the Urban Development Department contained at Annexure -5 dated 24th December 2001. The impugned order of repatriation has been stayed by this Court. Presently, the petitioner is posted at Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad under the orders issued by the Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand. It is the contention of the petitioner that his repatriation to the Engineering Wing of the parent department BISCOMAN would amount to termination of his services, as such Engineering Wing is no longer in existence. Counsel for the respondent State has however relied upon the affidavit filed on behalf of the Urban Development Department in the year 2003 and 2005. However, much time has elapsed since then and the petitioner informs that there has been another order of repatriation which is the subject matter of challenge in another writ petition filed in the year 2010 in which also, an interim order has been passed on 30th January 2010 to the effect that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. In these circumstances therefore, it is desirable that the counsel for the respondent State obtains latest instruction in the matter and apprise the Court on the next date. Accordingly, on the request of the counsel appearing on behalf of the State, list the case after four weeks on any hearing day, preferably on 27th June 2013.;