Ajay Shankar v. The State of Bihar

For the Appellant : Mr. Jai Prakash Verma, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

5-12-2013 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24th August 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 4522 of 2011, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The writ petitioner, an employee of the Bihar State 2 Patna High Court LPA No.1996 of 2011 (4) dt.05-12-2013 Electronic Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”), was in 1991 transferred to the Bihar Agriculture Marketing Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Marketing Board”) on deputation. On 15th September 2004, the deputation of the appellant was terminated; he was repatriated to the parent department and was transferred to the Corporation. Since his repatriation to the Corporation, the Bihar Agriculture Marketing Board came to be dissolved under the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market (Repealing) Act, 2006. It appears that the appellant, feeling aggrieved by the order of repatriation, preferred appeal before the Administrator of the Marketing Board. Pending the appeal before the Marketing Board, he chose not to join duty in the parent Corporation. His appeal having been dismissed, he joined the parent Corporation in 2008. Since then he has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in above C.W.J.C. No. 4522 of 2011 against the Marketing Board for recovery of salary for the aforesaid period of four years from October 2004 to July 2008 on the ground that the Administrator of the Marketing Board had unnecessarily kept the appeal pending. The claim has been rejected by the learned single Judge. Therefore, this Appeal. We agree with the learned single Judge. The claim made by the appellant is too tall. At first, no employee has right to continue on deputation or to challenge the order of repatriation. Second, the appellant chose not to join the duty pursuant to the order of repatriation on his own volition. He cannot be permitted to take undue advantage of his own wrong. Third, the Marketing Board having been dissolved in 2006, the appellant cannot have a claim against the Marketing Board. 3 Patna High Court LPA No.1996 of 2011 (4) dt.05-12-2013 We see no merit in this Appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) Pawan-Sanjeet (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)