ANTU PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioners have challenged the validity of the orders contained in Annexure -2 and the consequential order issued by the Executive Engineer contained in Annexure -1 whereby and where under their services are being sought to be returned back to their so called parent department namely, the Bihar State Construction Corporation Limited (thereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation ').

(2.) IN short the relevant facts are that initially all the petitioners were appointed as driver in the Corporation on daily wages in the year 1978. The services of the petitioners no. 1, 2 and 4 were regularised in the Corporation vide order dated 21.10.82 (Annexure -4). Later, as per policy decision of the State Government the services of the petitioners no. 1, 2 and 4 along with vehicles were transferred to the Irrigation Department of the State Government in its work charge establishment on 27.1.85, 16.7.86 and 9.5.87 and their services were absorbed in the Irrigation Department vide orders Contained in Annexures -3, 10 and 16 respectively. In so far the petitioner no. 3 is concerned he came to the Irrigation Department by his posting in the said Department from the Corporation vide order dated 22.4.88 contained in An -nexure -11. All the petitioners have continued in the Irrigation Department for about 10 years or mure, where after by the impugned orders their services are being sought to be returned back to their so called parent department i.e. the Corporation.

(3.) LEARNED G.P. No. 9 while referring to the said counter affidavit has submitted that the impugned orders have been passed keeping in view the larger interest of the employees working in the Corporation who were senior to the petitioner but were left out and not brought in the service of the Irrigation Department whereas the services of these petitioners were brought in the Irrigation Department through back door method in violation of the rules and governmental decision. However, he has not been able to refer to any rule relating to such transfer of services from the Corporation to the State Government except the Government circular dated 21st July, 1975 which is contained in Annexure -A. It was submitted by him that vide Annexure -A there was a complete ban put by the State Government on further appointment of work charge staff or M.R.Staff in any of the project in the State. It was submitted by him that the transfer of the services of these petitioners made in between in the year 1986 to 1987 in work charge establishment under the State Government from the Corporation was in complete violation of the said governmental instruction.