NANDU SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who, at the time of repeal of Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Act, was acting as Market Secretary Grade-B, has been refused to be adjusted in terms of Section 6 of the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market (Repeal) Act, 2006. He is aggrieved by the order dated 20th August, 2009 of the Special Secretary to the Government in the Department of Agriculture by which order, which was passed pursuant to directions of this Court, petitioner's case for consideration for adjustment has been rejected. The sole ground for such rejection is that the petitioner's initial appointment had not been valid and, as such, there could be no adjustment. On behalf of petitioner, it is submitted that in terms of Section 6(1) read with Section 6(iv) of the Repealing Act aforesaid, the authorities had no jurisdiction to look and enquire into the validity of the initial appointment. All they had to enquire was whether petitioner was an employee of the Board or the Market Committee and if he was employee, he was first entitled to continue with the same remuneration. Till orders of adjustment were passed, his services could not be ignored nor terminated.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This application is being disposed of at this stage itself.

(3.) The petitioner was originally employed in the services of the Board in the year, 1979. From time to time, he was shifted, promoted. Lastly, the Board of Directors of the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Board which is the Apex Body considered the matter of the petitioner in their meeting dated 17.6.2002 as per resolution No. 22 thereof. The Board having considered the matter of the petitioner clearly was of the view that the petitioner be posted as the Market Secretary Grade-B in his own pay scale of Rs. 5,500/- -9,000/-. it was not considered as a matter of promotion. This was the decision of the Marketing Board. It is, thus, clear that petitioner was a permanent employee of the Board when the Board was dissolved pursuant to the Repealing Act aforesaid. If that be so then firstly in terms of Section 6(1) of the Repealing Act, he had to continue on the same terms and conditions with the same emoluments till adjustments were found for him in other Department commensurate to his status. Thus, on repeal of the Act, he continued as such. Section 6(2) obliges the State to make a Committee of 3 persons to work out scheme for absorption, retirement, compulsory retirement or voluntary retirement of such employees. It nowhere gives them an option to enquire into the initial appointment made decades back and then disentitle the employee from absorption or other consideration as contemplated in Section 6(2). Learned counsel for the State submits that it goes without saying that an order of adjustment can only be passed where the appointments are found to be valid. In my view, that is not correct. If that was the legislative intent, the section would have read so otherwise it would have clearly provided that all employees of the Board who were validly appointed and validly holding post would be adjusted. The expression is not that. It says that all officers and employees of the Board shall remain in employment. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was an employee of the Board and was in employment at the time of passing of the Repealing Act. Thus, the enquiry, as made, is totally uncalled for and was not required. The order, thus, as contained in Annexure-13, cannot be sustained. It is, accordingly, quashed. It is directed that the respondents would now consider the adjustment of petitioner forthwith in accordance with provisions of Repealing Act. Endeavours must be made to find suitable position for the petitioner commensurate to his current status at the time of repealing of the Act within a period of 3 months from today.