PRATAP NARAIN SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal against a judgment of reversal. Certain facts are undisputed and they are these : In 1939 the plaintiff joined as lower division Assistant in the office of the I. G. (Prisons) Bihar. He was confirmed to this post in the year 1952. He officiated as upper division Assistant in the office of I. G. (Prisons) in the year 1954. On 20-12-1955 he was appointed upper division Assistant in the Development (Cottage) Department. In 1956 the Development (Cottage) Department was designated as Department of Industries and Mines and in the same year the plaintiff was posted in the Crafts-cum-Training Scheme of the department of Industries and Mines. In 1963 under orders of the Government the Crafts-cum-Training Scheme of department of Industries and Mines was made part of the Labour and Employment Department and it began so functioning with effect from 1964. Two persons, arrayed as defendants Nos. 6 and 7 were promoted as Sectional Officer in the Labour and Employment Department in the years 1967 and 1968 respectively, The plaintiff filed a representation challenging the promotion of defendants Nos. 6 and 7 to the post of Section Officer overlooking his claim. On the 2nd Mar., 1968, the plaintiff received a letter of the Labour and Employment department intimating that his services were no longer required in this department with effect from 31-3-1968. He should, therefore, join his parent department that is to say the department of I. G. (Prisons) with effect from 1-4-1968. This led the petitioner to serve a notice under Section 80 of the Civil P. C. on 21-5-1968. After service of this notice, the plaintiff received another order, substantially to the same effect as the earlier order dated 2-3-1968 (marked Exhibit 4-F) directing reversion of the plaintiff to the parent department with effect from 24-11-1968. There was further direction to him to join the department with effect from that date.

(2.) The grievance of the plaintiff not having been redressed he instituted the suit on 3-1-1969 for a declaration, inter alia, that his services had been permanently transferred and merged in the department of Labour and Employment and thai the order of reversion to Jail department was without jurisdiction and illegal. The order promoting defendants 6 and 7 as Sectional Head was also sought to be declared illegal. There was yet another declaration sought for by him which was that the plaintiff be held enlitled to the post, 'remuneration and privileges of the post of Sectional Officer', or in the alternative for an order to the defendants to consider the case of the plaintiff to the said post and to promote him to the said post. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff retired from service on 31-3-1972. On 8-9-1971 he filed a petition for amendment to tine plaint. By this amendment, which was allowed by the Court by order dated 25-11-1972, he prayed for a decree for damage and compensation past and future.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit alleging inter alia, the non-maintainability of the suit on account of the bar created by Section 80 of the Civil P. C. The trial Court recorded all the findings in favour of the plaintiff including the validity of the notice under Section 80 of the Civil P. C. The result was that the trial Court decreed the suit.