DHANANJAY TIWARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioners and counsel appearing for the State. Petitioners' prayer is for quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 533 dated 7.12.1999 issued under the signature of Commissioner and Secretary, Labour Employment and Training Department, Govt. of Bihar, whereby services of the petitioners have been returned back to BISCOMAN from the Department of Labour Employment and Training. BISCOMAN is the parent department of the petitioners, where the petitioners were appointed as Junior Engineers on different dates mentioned in the writ application. Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, who are also Assistant Engineers, were initially appointed as Foreman and on completion of probation period appointed as Assistant Engineer on permanent basis, in regular pay scale. The financial condition of BISCOMAN became critical during the year, 1988 and it started facing acute problem even in making payment of salary to its employees. The management and control of BISCOMAN was taken by the State Govt. and finally it was decided to dissolve the Engineering Department of the BISCOMAN and to sent its Engineers on deputation in different departments, with an objective of their absorption. Petitioners' case is that engineers and other employees, who were sent on deputation in different departments, many of them were absorbed in their respective departments, details of which has been given in para 11, 12 and 13 of the writ application. So far petitioners are concerned, they were sent on deputation in Labour Employment and Training Department in pursuance of the letter dated 15.4.1996 of the Commissioner and Secretary of that department. All four petitioners were posted on deputation against vacant posts in the Labour Employment and Training Department vide Memo No. 644 dated 14.8.1996 and they were posted at different places. Some of the petitioners were posted at Industrial Training Institutes, at Ranchi and Patna.

(2.) PETITIONERS ' case is that the deputation in their cases as well as in case of other similarly situated employees of the BISCOMAN, working in different departments, was not a simple deputation rather they were sent on deputation purposely for their absorption against the posts they were sent on deputation in future. The reason was that BISCOMAN, on account of its financial status had became non -functional and there was no scope for its' revival and employees returning back to the parent department. The re - patriation of service of such deputationists to their department amounted to indirect termination, as BISCOMAN, had completely become non -functional. It has been submitted by the petitioners' that though some of the employees sent on deputation in different departmens were absorbed but in case of others, subsequently the order of re -patriation was passed by the Departments, where they were sent on deputation. Such orders of re -patriation were challenged by filing writ applications. The writ applications preferred by the employees sent on deputation were dismissed by the Single Bench. Dismissal orders were challenged by filing a number of L.P.As. L.P.As., which were heard analogous, and finally Letters Patent Appeals were allowed. While, allowing prayer of the petitioners, it was held that since many departments of BISCOMAN were closed and its employees were transferred to different departments for the purpose of rehabilitation and not on simple deputation, in such cases, employees like the appellants can be made to suffer and left in lurch after many years of service under so called deputation, which they accepted as a measure for their rehabilitation. On the promise made by the authorities, who were competent to take such a policy decisions the appellants gave up their old service and its legal benefits and opted for a rehabilitation scheme which was to work under the technicality of absorption after deputation. In such circumstances, non -issuance of the requisite "Resolution" in the name of head of the State cannot be allowed to adversely affect the employees like the appellants. It has rightly been submitted on behalf of the appellants that in such circumstances the principle of Promissory Estoppel will come to their aid and they will have legitimate expectation of being rehabilitated against vacant posts on which they have worked for long period, on being found eligible in all respects. Finally the orders, whereby the appellants were re -patriated to their posts were quashed and they were directed to be absorbed on posts they had worked for such a long time on deputation.

(3.) I find that case of these petitioners are identical to cases, which have been decided by the Division Bench in different Letters Patent Appeals. Petitioners have also continuously worked since the date of their deputation and joining in the deputationists department. So far parent department is concerned, it is not in a position to accept the services of the petitioners and to provide them same benefit which they are getting on account of their deputation in the Department of Labour Employment and Training. The reason assigned in the impugned order for re -patriation of the petitioners that it was not as per Rule.