SYED MOHAMMAD ZEYANL HAQUE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a permanent Government servant of the Road Construction Department, who was appointed as Subdivisional clerk on 18th September, 1960 and later promoted as Junior accounts Clerk on 4th August, 1962. By order dated 15th April, 1971 he was confirmed as senior Accounts Clerk in the Bridge Design Circle of the then public Works Department with effect from last March, 1969 Later, when a work Circle of the State Family Welfare Bureau (hereafter referred to as 'bureau') under the Health Department was created, the services of Accounts clerks were needed. The petitioner opted to go on deputation vide his application dated 12th January, 1982 and pursuant to the letter of the Bureau dated 25th February, 1982 the petitioner joined the Bureau on 16th March, 1982 after being relieved from the department. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted at various places under the Bureau. A letter dated 12th July. 1989 was sent to the petitioner by the Superintendent Engineer, Bridge Design circle, Road Construction Department, directing; him to join the post of senior Accounts Clerk in the said Circle by 25th July, 1989, failing which his lien on the post in the said Circle will be terminated. A perusal of the said letter, which has been marked Aanexure-6 to the petition, further shows that a request was made to the Executive Engineer. Cell, State Family welfare Bureau, Patna, to relieve the petitioner immediately after taking over the charge of cash etc from him. The Executive Engineer of the Bureau in reply to the aforesaid letter dated 12th July, 1989 requested the Superintending engineer of the Bridge Design Circle, vide his letter dated 9th January, 1990 (Annexure-7) not to terminate the lien of the petitioner until his obsorption in the Bureau is finally made and an assurance was also given in the said communication that the petitioner was likely to be absorbed in the Bureau in near future. On 25th July, 1991 the Additional Commissioner-cum-Secretary of the Health Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, of which the said Bureau is a part, sent, a letter to the Superintending Engineer to the btidge Desisn Circle, Patna, returning the services of the petitioner with immediate effect to his parent department, namely, Bridge Design Circle in the road Construction Department, Patna, with a request to accept his joinicg. A copy of the said letter was also sent to the petitioner. This writ petition was filed on 30th July, 1991, challenging the aforesaid order dated 25th July. 1991, which has been marked Annexurs-1 to the writ petition.

(2.) On 30th July, 1991 itself the Superintending Engineer of the said circle informed the Additional Commissioner-cum-Secretary, in reply to his aforesaid letter dated 25tb July, 1991 that the lien, of the petitioner in his parent department t. e. Road Construction Department, stood terminated on 25th July, 1991 itself and, therefore, there was no question of either extending the period of lien and/or of accepting the joining of the petitioner in the Bridge design Circle of the Department at Patna. Almost simultaneously, by letter dated 1st August, 1991, pursuant to the aforementioned order as contained in the said letter of the Additional Commissioner dated 25th July, 1991 the petitioner was relieved from the post of Senior Accounts Clerk in the Engineering cell of the Bureau Tee petitioner, inter alia, challenged those two orders in a supplementary affidavit filed on 8th August, 1991.

(3.) This petition came up for preliminary bearing on 8th August, 1991 and an interim order of stay of the operation of the aforementioned order dated 25th July, 1991 (Annexure-1) was passed. The said order was continued on various dates to which the hearing of the case was adjourned to enable the respondents to file their counter-affidavit. Two counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Executive Engineer of the said Bureau, responsdent no. 6. The pleadings made by the petitioner have not been factually controverted. The only thing that has been said is that the petitioner never requested for being relieved after the receipt of the aforementioned letters dated 12th july, 1989, whereby the petitioner had been directed to join his parent department by 25th July, 1989. No country-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the road Construction Department or the Bridge Design Circle of the said department, Mr. Daya Nand Singh, learned Standing Counsel No. 2. however, on the basis of the instructions received from that department, indicated their stand, which is mere reiteration of what has been stated in the aforementioned letter dated 30th July, 1991 (Annexure-10) that the petitioner's lien stands terminated with effect from 25th July, 1989.