NAWAL KISHORE SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by his repatriation from the State Election Commission, Bihar to the Bihar State Sugar Corporation vide Memo No. 2699 dated 30-9-2002 of the Election Commission.

(2.) The facts of the case so far as relevant may be stated as follows. The Election Commission by letter dated 24-7-2000 requested the Rural Development Department to make available officers and employees as detailed in their letter, for their posting in the Election Commission on deputation so that it could conduct the ensuing panchayat election. One of the posts mentioned in the letter was Information & Public Relations Officer. On 30-11-2000 the Directorate of Panchayat Raj, Bihar, requested the Managing Director, Bihar State Sugar Corporation Limited to spare the petitioner (and one Sri Satish Chandra Sinha) for his posting in the Election Commission on deputation basis. It was stated in the letter that decision had been taken to post the petitioner and said Sri Satish Chandra Sinha in the Commission on deputation basis, and at any time their services could be returned without assigning any reason. It is relevant to mention here that the petitioner is a permanent employee of the State Sugar Corporation then posted as Assistant Secretary. Copy of the letter/order of the Sugar Corporation or the Directorate of Panchayat Raj/Department of the Rural Development relieving the petitioner and deputing him in the Commission has not been brought on record but from the office order of the Election Commission dated 7-12-2000 it appears that the petitioner was relieved by the Sugar Corporation on 30-11-2000 itself. On 7-12-2000, by Annexure-4, the joining of the petitioner in the Commission on the post of Public Relation Officer was accepted on the conditions inter alia, (i) that his deputation will be temporary till further orders in the old scale of Rs. 2000-38000/- and his services could be returned at any time without assigning any reason; and (ii) that his deputation will not be treated as a ground of appointment in the Government service and mere drawal ofsalary will not be treated as conferring any right on the post. The case of the petitioner is that he satisfactorily performed the duties of the post bf of Public Relation Officer. However, suddenly on 30-9-2002 his services were returned to his parent Organisation i.e. Sugar Corporation and he was relieved from the post with effect from 1-10-2000.

(3.) Shri Y.V. Giri, learned Counsel for the petitioner, made the following submissions. No reason has been assigned in the order dated 30-9-2002 but a plea has been taken that after the Panchayat Elections there was no work for the petitioner, but as the election is an ongoing process that ground must be rejected as non-est. The post of Public Relation Officer in the Election Commission is sanctioned one and the same has not been abolished. The petitioner has been singled out and repainted due to mala fide on the part of the Secretary. The petitioner was sent to the Commission under the rehabilitation scheme. The Sugar Corporation being nonfunctional and there being on work nor any avenue for salary payment, the repatriation of the petitioner would virtually amount to his removal from service. The petitioner is due to superannuate in September, 2003 and at the fag end of his career he should not be made to suffer at the hands of the respondents. The petitioner was posted in the Commission under the orders of the State Government and therefore, it is the State Government alone which is competent to cancel his posting.