SURESH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed in public interest by the petitioner, Sri Suresh Pandey, inter alia, seeking several directions including the one to the effect that the respondent -State of Jharkhand should be directed to reconstitute State Road Transport Corporation in order to utilize 35% of the assets which it had received by virtue of the order passed by the Supreme Court after bifurcation of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called as B.S.R.T.C). Several other directions have also been sought in the writ petition, which, in substance, indicate that the petitioner is aggrieved of the fact that the respondent -State of Jharkhand has no plan in regard to utilization of the assets which it had received after bifurcation of the B.S.R.T.C and that when the State of Jharkhand was formed the buses which had been received by the respondent -State were not being utilized properly, nor the employees of the Corporation were engaged in utilization of the assets by running the buses with the result that the State Transport Corporation Depots are lying vacant and are occupied by anti -social elements.

(2.) IN response to the show cause notice, which had been issued to the respondents, a detailed affidavit has been filed by the respondent -State giving out the details and the manner in which 35% of the assets of the B.S.R.T.C, which had been transferred to the State of Jharkhand, would be used, utilized and dealt with. The reply also refers to the order passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7290/1994 in the matter of Suraj Deo Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors. The employees of the B.S.R.T.C had filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court claiming arrears of salary and other allowances which had not been paid for a long time. An order was passed by the Patna High Court, against which a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court was preferred. The Supreme Court took into account the plight of the employees of the B.S.R.T.C who had not been paid their salary for many months and also the plight of those who had retired or died without their salary or retiral benefits being paid for want of fund. In pursuance to the directions of the Supreme Court, a revival package was chalked out and the assets of the B.S.R.T.C were divided into two parts out of which one part was to be entrusted to the State of Bihar and 35% was to be received by the State of Jharkhand. Simultaneously an Arbitration Committee also had been constituted in order to determine the fate of the employees, who had been discharging duties in the B.S.R.T.C, while the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand was a unified State. However, after bifurcation, the recommendations of the Arbitration Committee were discussed under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, wherein it was decided to constitute a High Level Committee headed by the Member, Board of Revenue, to look into the fate of the employees who had become the part of the State of Jharkhand in consequence of the division of the B.S.R.T.C from the midnight of 28.2.2009 on as is where is basis. The quantum which fell into the share of the State of Jharkhand, were admittedly 35%, but it was submitted that the State of Jharkhand as of now has decided not to constitute another Corporation in the State of Jharkhand but has decided to utilize the assets of 35% through the Transport Department and for this purpose, it proposes to utilize the 72 buses which it has received as part of its share of 35% and 73 buses which had already been obtained by the State on as is where is basis. It has been categorically stated that 73 buses are being plied on various routes including a few on inter -State routes. In so far as the state of employees are concerned, the same has already been dealt with in pursuance to the recommendation of the Arbitration Committee, which had been constituted in pursuance to the order of the Supreme Court.

(3.) IN view of the explanation and reply filed by the State of Jharkhand regarding the operation of the buses through the Transport Department and in absence of the material to the effect that it is not functioning properly, this Court finds no reason to enter into the matter further. The cause raised by the petitioner in this writ petition has duly and adequately been addressed by the respondent -State as per its counter -affidavit, which has not even been refuted by the petitioner.