The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(S) Nos. 4118, 4128 & 4305 of 2013 ---- … Petitioner in WP(S) 4118/2013 Karma Nath Jha Dashrath Prasad … Petitioner in WP(S) 4128/2013 Bashista Narayan Choudhary… Petitioner in WP(S) 4305/2013 ... ... -Versus- The State of Jharkhand and ors. ---- ... Respondents in all cases. CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioners For the Respondents ----
Legal Reasoning
:Mr. Rishi Pallawa :M/s. Jai Prakash, Sr. Advocate, Chaitail Sinha, J.C. to A.A.G & Anshuman Kumar, J.C. to Sr. S.C.I. ---- 5- 23.8.2013 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioners, in these three writ petitions, are aggrieved by the office order dated 28.6.2013 as contained in memo no. 781 issued by the Director, Department of Soil Conservation, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereunder their services have been handed over to the Directorate of Agriculture. The parent cadre of these petitioners is admittedly Directorate of Agriculture and not Directorate of the Soil Conservation, which is not in dispute. The services of the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 4118 of 2013 were handed over by the Directorate of Agriculture to the Directorate of Soil Conservation in March, 2006. The services of the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 4128 and 4305 of 2013 were handed over by the Directorate of Agriculture to the Directorate of Soil Conservation in the year 2009. These petitioners were posted as Assistant Soil Conservation Officers at Potka, Nawa and Barhet respectively in the Directorate of Soil Conservation. However, they have been transferred to the Directorate of Agriculture by which they have been aggrieved. The
Decision
grievance of the writ petitioners is that the impugned order, which has been passed in respect of 7 persons including these three petitioners, has been done in a pick and choose manner. The basis of such repatriation to the parent Directorate of Agriculture is on the basis of the decision of the Establishment Committee of the Soil Conservation 2. Directorate dated 28.6.2013, according to which the services of such Assistant Soil Conservation Officers, who have less than two years of service remaining were to be repatriated to the Directorate of Agriculture in order to ensure processing of the post retirement claim of such incumbent in an expeditious manner. However, according to the petitioners, though Seven persons have been repatriated, there are other persons left in the same Directorate, who also have less than two years of service and in some cases less than one year of service but they have been not repatriated to the same Directorate. In such circumstances, these petitioners should not have been disturbed at the fag end of their services by transferring them from one Directorate to other Directorate. The order of such repatriation is colourful exercise to get rid of unfavourable officers from the Directorate of Soil Conservation. Therefore, they also submit that the ordinary tenure of transfer and posting of an incumbent under the Government department is three years as per the Circular of erstwhile Bihar Government dated 25.10.1980. The same was also discussed and approved by the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Uttam Kujur Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2008 (2) JCR, 306 (Jhr). In such circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The respondent-State have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. It is the considered stand of the respondents that repatriation of the officers has been made in the larger interest based upon the resolution of the Establishment Committee at Directorate of Soil Conservation dated 28.6.2013 in order to ensure expeditious processing and disposal of post retirement benefit claims of such employees who have less than two years of service left. It is also contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the State that the services of the petitioners belong to the Directorate of Agriculture. 3. Their services were earlier handed over to the Directorate of Soil Conservation by the Directorate of Agriculture in the year 2006 and 2009 respectively for exigency of work. The petitioners do not have legal right to continue in the Directorate of Soil Conservation as their parent Directorate is Directorate of Agriculture. The order impugned is not an order of transfer but is simply an order of repatriation to the parent Directorate. They are also undertaking an exercise to give effect to the same resolution dated 28.6.2013 in respect of other officers in the said Directorate of Soil Conservation for their repatriation to the parent Directorate of Agriculture. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and gone through the relevant materials on record including the impugned order. The impugned order dated 28.6.2013 does not appear to be an order of transfer. The services of seven persons, who belong to the Directorate of Agriculture, have been reverted to the same Directorate by the Soil Conservation Directorate by the impugned order dated 28.6.2013. These petitioners admittedly are going to retire in April, 2015, January, 2015 and January, 2014 respectively. The resolution, which is enclosed to the counter affidavit of the respondents, shows on 28.6.2013 the meeting of the Establishment Committee of the Directorate of soil Conservation was attended by five members including the Director of Soil Conservation, who took a decision vide paragraph 2 of the said minutes , to repatriate the services of such Assistant Soil Conservation Officers to their parent Directorate of Agriculture, who had less than two years of service left. The impugned order, as already observed, is not an order of transfer. The petitioners as aforesaid do not have a legal right to remain in the Directorate of Soil Conservation, which is not their parent Directorate, as admittedly they are officers of Directorate of Agriculture under the parent department of Agriculture. Though submissions have 4. been made that the action of the respondent-Director is malafide but they are not substantiated by averment made in the writ petition nor the officer concerned is made party by name. On the other hand, the respondents in their counter affidavit have taken a stand that they have resolved to undertake exercise to repatriate such officers, who have less than two years of service left. Therefore, in that exercise seven persons including the present petitioners have been repatriated. In such circumstances, therefore, the impugned order does not appear to be an order of transfer, the services of the petitioners have simply been handed over to the Directorate of Agriculture. The reliance of the petitioners upon the circular of 1980 to submit that minimum tenure of three years is prescribed for particular place of posting does not apply to the present case, as the same is not an order of transfer. Since the respondents themselves indicated that they are bound to carry out the resolution of 28.6.2013 in the letter and spirit taking into account of such factors including the exigency of work, it is expected that such an exercise should be carried out in an uniform manner by the Directorate of Soil Conservation. The Secretary of the Agriculture Department may also look into the matter so that no heart burning is caused among the officers, who are to be repatriated to the Agriculture department from the Soil Conservation department. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the reasons indicated hereinabove, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 28.6.2013. Therefore, these writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. Pandey (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. )