RAMA KANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Secretary of the department has filed his personal affidavit. The affidavit filed by him simply shows that the Government is disowning these corporations/agencies as their babies. It is submitted by the Secretary in his counter affidavit that the Chairman of the agencies had been appointing people illegally and the State is to put to unnecessary loss. It is also stated in the affidavit that a poor State like Bihar is unable to bear the expenses, therefore, the agency must generate its fund in accordance with the provisions of the Act. On one side, the State Government says that these agencies are developmental autonomous agencies and at the same time the State says that the agencies would not be justified in giving salary to its staff in the revised pay scale. I fail to understand the stand taken by the State Government. If the bodies are autonomous, they would be always free to take their own decision and if it is not autonomous and has to dance to the tune of the State Government or it is a baby delivered by the State authority then the State has to look after it. The State cannot be allowed to act in a dubious manner. They cannot be allowed to eat cake and have it. Looking into the convenience of the State the affidavits are being filed and the authorities say that it is an autonomous body, therefore, the State is not answerable but at the same time they say that the cabinet has taken a decision that the employees of these agencies should not be paid in the revised scale. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit, it is said that the decision regarding the revised pay scale to the State employees do not cover them. The State says that it became necessary that the proposal of revised pay scale for these agencies should be sent to the Council of Ministers. I am again at a loss to understand that if it is an autonomous body under the Act and is getting certain grants from the State Government or the Central Government then how can the State Government take a policy decision in the matter of an autonomous body, how can the State Government thrust its opinion upon an autonomous body. It appears that the State Government wants to have the control of the agency but without any further liabilities. The State Government appears to have created these agencies mainly to avoid direct burden on the exchequer and not to give the status of the government employees, to the employees of the agency. If the State creates an autonomous body under an Act then the State except as provided under the Act cannot interfere with the management of the autonomous body. It cannot ask the management to observe the decision of the State Government nor it can ask its Officers who are sent on deputation to take a decision as the State Government wants.

(2.) LET the Secretary of the department file his further affidavit that if the agencies are autonomous bodies then under what authority of law or under what authority of administrative business or under what authority of Act No. 3 of 1979, the State has issued a direction that the government employees sent on deputation would be paid in full and the employees engaged by the agencies would not be paid in their revised pay scale. It is also to be seen from Section 3 of the Act that the agency is to be constituted in a particular manner. Section 4 says that for every agency set up under section 3 of the Act, the State Government shall by notification published in the official gazette, constitute a board consisting of the persons well described in sub paragraphs (a) to (m) of sub -section 1 of section 4. A bare perusal of section 4 would show that the Board is to be appointed by the State Government. The policy decisions are to be taken by the Board. Sub -section 2 of Section 4 says that the Chairman of the Board and the Managing Director shall be appointed by the State Government who shall hold office at the pleasure of the State Government and the State Government shall prescribe terms and conditions. In the additional counter filed by the Secretary, it has been stated that Chairman of the Board has appointed 77 pearsons illegally but the counter affidavit is beautifully vague on the point that what action has been taken against such Chairman who was sent by the Government and has appointed 77 persons illegally. Let the Secretary of the department also state in his further affidavit that as to what positive action has been taken against such Chairman, whether such Chairman continues and what particular action is proposed by the department itself.

(3.) WOULD make it clear that the authority has to act as an autonomous body and the Board has to take its own decision. Unfortunately, even after constitution of the agency and creation of the Board the State Government is still interfering in day to day proceedings of the agency which is not permissible under the law. If the State says that it is not responsible for the acts of the agency or it disowns the agency then it has no authority to issue any direction to the said body to act in a particular manner. The powers of the State Government are in relation to constitution of the agency and creation of the Board. The powers are not to interfere in day to day proceedings. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner produced complete copy of Annexure -5. Let the same be filed with additional affidavit and be also supplied to the State Government. From the complete copy of Annexure -5, it appears that the present Secretary of the department Mr. V. Jayshankerr who was Registrar Co -operatives in 1990, attended a meeting of Sone Command Area Development Agency on 15/16 February, 1990. Item no. 13/90 was in relation to giving benefit of the revised pay scale to the agencys employees in accordance with the revision given by the State Government. The resolution was that the Chairman of the Agency himself was competent to issue orders in relation to revision of pay. It was also observed that in accordance with the recommendations of the State Government the benefits would be given to the employees of the Sone Command Area Development Agency. The resolution further says that the Chairman of the Sone Command Area Development Agency stands authorised to take such decision in future. If that was the resolution of the committee/Board then I fail to understand that how could a person who was a party to the proceeding can say that the action taken by the State Government is absolutely justified. Let the Secretary file his further statement in relation to that resolution.