SHIV KUMAR SUKLA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Re: I.A. No. 7224 of 2013 Heard Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Md. Nasrul Huda Khan, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Bihar representing all the respondents.

(2.) It is undisputed that no order of absorption was passed but it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the documents with regard to his service had been summoned from his parent organization, namely, BISCOMAUN for the purpose of processing the claim of the appellant for absorption. In spite of this, an order of repatriation was passed on 3/8/2012. The appellant had already filed the writ petition giving rise to this appeal praying for his absorption and since in between the repatriation order had surfaced he challenged the same by I.A. No. 5346 of 2012 in which an interim order of stay was granted on 28 th August, 2012. A prayer in the Interlocutory Application had also been made for quashing of the said order. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has referred to the interim order aforesaid and has also recorded the fact that the appellant was allowed to continue at his place of deputation.

(3.) The peculiar fact which takes a turn in this case is the superannuation of the appellant on 31/8/2012 which is in very quick succession of the aforesaid events narrated hereinabove. The learned Single Judge did not adjudicate upon the order of repatriation dtd. 3/8/2012 which was specifically under challenge and consequently with the dismissal of the writ petition the interim order dtd. 28/8/2012 merged with the same without any relief to the appellant in spite of a challenge having been raised to the same.