Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. By the impugned order contained in Memo No. 269/A dated 3.5.2003, Annexure -18 passed by the respondent -Administrator, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna, the services of the petitioner have been terminated.
(2.) INCIDENTALLY , it is relevant to point out at the outset that the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna, the respondent No. 1 had initially been represented in the instant proceeding. However, during the course of proceeding it was brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel earlier representing respondent -BSRTC that files concerning BSRTC were handed over to the counsel representing the State of Jharkhand in view of the communication dated 23.8.2012 contained in Memo No. 992 issued by the Secretary -cum -Transport Commissioner, State of Jharkhand. It was also informed that in view of the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7290 of 1994 dated 12.8.2008, a resolution dated 28.2.2009 contained in Memo No. 176 was issued by the Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Jharkhand whereunder it was indicated that the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna, however, did not remain inter -State Corporation in terms of the Government of India Notification No. 1127 dated 18.2.2003 w.e.f. 30.6.2004. Therefore, liabilities of the Corporation for the period 15.11.2000 to 30.6.2004 would be that of the State of Bihar/the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation while the State of Jharkhand would bear liability of the said Corporation and the employees, who come within the State w.e.f. 1.7.2004. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State of Jharkhand that the petitioner was dismissed on 3.5.2003 and could have reached the age of superannuation on 31.3.2004 i.e. before 30.6.2004 for which period BSRTC was liable.
(3.) IN such circumstances, this Court found it desirable to issue notices upon the respondent the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna and its officials vide order dated 1.5.2013. However, despite such notices having been issued under registered cover with A/D and time having expired for return of such acknowledgment, no one entered appearance on their behalf. Therefore, notices on the concerned respondents were treated to be validly served. The matter has been pending since the year 2003. In such circumstances, the case has been heard ex -parte against the BSRTC and its other officials. However, the State of Jharkhand is represented through its counsel during the course of proceeding of the case. It is also necessary to state that in the instant case, no counter affidavit has been filed on the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner.;