KEDAR PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Rajnikant Jha, Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.B. Kumar, S.C. XVI, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh appearing for the State Advisory Committee and Mr. Dhrub Mukherjee representing the State of Jharkhand.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the allocation of his service to the State of Jharkhand as Steno Sub-Inspector and he seeks to challenge the orders issued in this regard by the Central Government and the order relieving him from his present post by the Government of Bihar. THE petitioner is not so much aggrieved by the allocation of his service to the State of Jharkhand as by the decision to send him on the post of Steno Sub-Inspector in a lower scale of pay. THE grievance of the petitioner appears to be totally justified and the stand of the Government of Bihar that has led to the anomalous situation with regard to the petitioner appears quite curious to the Court. THE undeniable facts of the case may be stated thus.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar, it is stated that on 15.11.2000 the date of bifurcation of the State, the petitioner was working as Steno Sub-INspector. That being the relevant date for the purpose of allocation of service, his case could only be considered as Steno Sub-INspector and not as Sub-INspector in the higher scale of pay.