AVINASH VATSYAYAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these eight Letters Patent Appeals have been treated analogous to each other and have been heard together because of a common issue of law as well as facts as to whether the appellants were sent to their present employers on simple deputation and therefore liable to be repatriated or whether their services had, in fact, been transferred in the name of deputation for the purpose of absorption in accordance with a policy decision. While two of the Letters Patent Appeals bearing nos.787 and 788 of 2006 arise out from a different judgment dated 13-7-2006, the remaining appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 26-7-2006.

(2.) Mr. Shashi Anugarah Narain, learned senior counsel for both the appellants of L.P.A. No. 795 of 2006 led the arguments in all the cases, mainly on the basis of facts available in the records of that appeal. For the sake of convenience, the facts will be referred to from the records of that appeal only unless it is deemed necessary to refer specifically to the facts from some other appeals.

(3.) As noticed earlier L.P.A. No. 795 of 2006 and five other L.P.As. seek to challenge a common judgment dated 26-7-2006 whereby the writ court dismissed four writ petitions bearing C.W.J.C. Nos.1139 and 1899 of 2001 and C.W.J.C.Nos. 7462 and 13598 of 2000, after rejecting the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners had been sent on deputation from BISCOMAUN because Biscomaun at that time was under an Administrator and like several other public undertakings of Bihar was suffering from poor financial condition and inviability and as per recommendation of a High Level Committee constituted by the State of Bihar the deputation was for the purpose of being absorbed in different wings/ departments of the State of Bihar and equality of treatment also requires that petitioners be treated as permanently absorbed like similar deputationists from BISCOMAUN and several other public undertakings who have been permanently absorbed. The writ court accepted the stand of the State and the Patna Regional Development Authority (P.R.D.A.) that petitioners should be treated like ordinary deputationists whose deputation can be terminated at any time. The stand of the State Government was that it had never taken a decision to absorb the petitioners and similarly situated persons in different wings/ departments of the State and only as a temporary measure the petitioners had been sent on deputation. The learned single Judge also accepted the stand of the State that engineers who were continuing on deputation in P.R.D.A. had to be repatriated because of an order dated 8-2-2000 passed in a Public Interest Litigation bearing C.W.J.C.No. 2290 of 1990.