BRAJ BHUSHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) PETITIONER by way of this writ application wants a direction upon the respondents of Bihar Agriculture Marketing Board to relieve him from service to enable him to join Jharkhand State Agriculture Marketing Board at Ranchi. He also wants a direction upon the respondents of Jharkhand to accept his joining on the post of Market Supervisor. He has also sought payment of certain salary and revision of pay -scale as such.

(3.) THE basic submission of the petitioner is that he is an employee of the headquarters because he is a Superivsor and his appointment was by the headquarters, therefore, he should be treated as a headqu er employee and even otherwise in terms of the notification dated 13.9.2004 issued by the Ministry of Home, Government of India he is entitled to allocation in the ratio in which the same said notification has allowed bifurcation. The notification dated 13.9.2004 is Annexure -A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Marketing Board of Bihar. The said notification envisages division of assets and liability as well as division of employees between Bihar Board as well as the Jharkhand Board. In this regard it Is important to take note of that part of the notification which has relevance in -the present case, which is quoted hereinbelow: ''