TRILOKI NATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order by which his services have been returned by Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board ') to the Agriculture Department of the State Government. The order has been communicated by the Managing Director of the Board to the Agriculture Department vide his memo no. 30/GO. dated 30.3.2002. The petitioner seeks quashing of the said letter and a direction upon the respondents to allow him to remain in the service of the Board as Market Secretary. He also seeks direction to grant him the scale of Market Secretary with all consequential benefits pursuant to order dated 5.8.95 by which he was promoted as Market Secretary in the scale of Rs. 1640 -2900.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner, briefly stated, is as follows. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Laboratory Attendant by the Dy. Director, Agriculture Marketing, Government of Bihar on 18.1.74 and directed to submit his joining in the office of the Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board. Pursuant to his above - said appointment the petitioner joined the Board on 19.1.74 and started discharging his functions under the Board. In 1976 vacancies occurred on class III posts of Lower Division Clerk. The petitioner being the seniormost and eligible was promoted as Lower Division Clerk alongwith others on 19.11.76. According to the petitioner, pursuant to policy decision the State Government had issued notification no. 13906 dated 31.10.72 in terms of which all officers/employees working under the Agriculture Marketing wing of the Agriculture Department, except those mentioned in the schedule of the notification, stood transferred to the Board in the same pay scale with facilities admissible to the Government servants. The order with respect to their service conditions was to be issued later. In the light of the abovesaid notification dated 31.10.72 the State Government in the Agriculture Department took a decision, by way of resolution, vide memo no. 900 dated 26,1.88, in terms of which the employees sent on deputation to the Board were to exercise their option in the matter of their absorption in the service of the Board. Such of them working on posts sanctioned by the State Government under the Board opting to be absorbed in the services of the Board were to be treated as Board 'semployees and their relationship with the Department i.e. the State Government were to stand terminated. Such of those who did not exercise option, or do not do so in future, in favour of absorption were to continue in the service of the Board but on deputation basis. The case of the petitioner is that in 1989 a decision was taken by the then Chief Minister to abolish market fee on sugarcane and molasses. The petitioner believing that such a move would cause recurring loss of Rs. 72 lacs per annum to the Government and the Board objected to the abolition. Though similar decision was taken by the next Chief Minister between November 1989 and March 1990, in view of the objection raised by the petitioner, the successor Chief Minister recalled the earlier decision, and thus the Government/Board was saved of a loss of Rs. 72 lacs, and in appreciation of his work he was promoted on the post of Market Secretary Grade -B. Initially, by mistake, order of 'posting ' as Market Secretary was issued on 18.7.95 but later a modified order 'promoting ' him on the post was issued on 5.8.95. The petitioner thereafter started performing the duties of the post of Market Secretary. On 7.9.97 the Managing Director of the Board reduced his pay against which he filed CWJC No. 9055/97. In the counter affidavit filed in the case the State Government took the stand that the Board has no authority under to Act to take any decision without consulting the State Government and this supported the case of the petitioner. The petitioner has referred to certain incidents which took place during his tenure at Raxaul which do not appear to be relevant for the purpose of this case. The petitioner has made averments in praise of his work and performance and it is not necessary to notice them too for the purpose of this case. Suddenly, on 30.3.2002 the Managing Director of the Board issued the impugned letter and returned his services to the Agriculture Department. Earlier his salary had been stopped since July, 2001.

(3.) /1/2013 Page 198 Jagan Sahani Versus State Of Bihar Appeals being LPA Nos. 651, 652 and 710 of 2000 were also dismissed by the Division Bench. This Court held that as deputationist they have no right to continue on deputation nor could they claim absorption. The Board, in the circumstances, contends that the petitioner has no vested right to continue in the services of the Board on deputation as long as he likes; as a deputationist, his services can always be repatriated to his parent department at the instance of the borrowing department or the parent department. 4. The State Government has filed three affidavits. While two of them are sworn by Shri Ashok Prasad, a Leave Reserve Officer, Directorate of Agriculture, the third one is sworn by Shri Madan Mohan Singh, Agriculture Production Commissioner pursuant to the direction of this Court vide order dated 23.5.2002. The stand of the State Government may briefly be stated as follows. 'The initial appointment of the petitioner was on class IV post, namely, Laboratory Attendant from which he was promoted as Lower Division Clerk in the scale of Rs. 220 -315 on 19.1.76. On merger of the post of Lower Division and Upper Division Clerk, he was allowed the Scale of 348 -570 with effect from 1.3.77. Later he was granted promotion on the post of Market Secretary Grade -B. Regarding nature of the petitioner 'sservice under the Board it has been stated that the petitioner was sent on deputation to the Board in accordance with notification no. 13906 dated 31.10.72. He is a State Government employee having his lien in the Agriculture Department. The State Government is competent to fix service condition of the employees and that is binding on the Board. By resolution no. 900 dated 26.1.88 it was decided that deputation of a Government servant working under the Marketing Board will continue till their retirement. There is no post of Market Secretary under the State Government, and in this view of the matter, the Government by its letter dated 22.4.2002 informed the Managing Director of the Board that it was not possible to accept the petitioner 'sservices in the Agriculture Department. Copy of the said letter has been enclosed as Annexure -B to the first affidavit. In the affidavit of the Agriculture Production Commissioner, it has been stated that after the creation of the Agriculture Marketing Board the marketing wing of the Agriculture Department became irrelevant and even the Board in its affidavit has admitted this fact. It was for this reason that the services of the employees of the marketing wing being category -8 employees, were transferred to the Board. The affidavit does not deny that the parent department of the employees is the Agriculture Department but it is submitted that in resolution no. 900 dated 26.1.88 laying down the service conditions of the deputationists, it was clarified that the services of the State Government employees deputed to the Marketing Board will remain with the Marketing Board till retirement. As regards the promotion of the petitioner on the post of Market Secretary Grade -B, it has been stated that Section 20(1) of the Bihar Agriculture Market Produce Act, 1960 empowers the State Government to appoint Market Secretary to the Agriculture Produce Market Committees, and the petitioner was appointed to the post of Market Secretary Grade -B through promotion "considering commendable and excellent work of the petitioner as special case with the approval of the then Hon ble Minister of Agriculture". It has been stated that in view of the then existing Rule 64(1) (c) proviso, lack of educational qualification was no bar to promotion provided the service records of the person was otherwise satisfactory. The amendment in the said rule making the educational qualification mandatory even in the case of promotion was made only in 1996 i.e. later than the petitioner 'spromotion. Thus appointment/promotion of the petitioner as Market Secretary cannot be said to be illegal.