THE JHARKHAND INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHERS Vs. ANIMESH TETARWAY AND THE DIRECTOR INDUSTRIES, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 27th August, 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4665 of 2012. Counsel for the appellants submitted that respondent No. 1 served the present appellants on deputation as a Tracer. The order of deputation dated 8th April, 2006 is at Annexure -1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. The parent department of Respondent No. 1 is Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3 and since, as per rule, i.e. as per Rule 2 of the circular dated 16th November, 1991 issued by the Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, maximum period of deputation is three years and the deputation allowance cannot be paid after the period of three (sic) without approval of the Finance Department and therefore, Respondent No. 1/original petitioner was not entitled to deputation allowance for the period he served after three years. Audit objection was raised and Notice dated 14th June, 2012 was issued upon the Respondent No. 1 for recovery of the excess amount paid inadvertently towards deputation allowance after the stipulated period of three years. The said Notice is at Annexure -7 to this Letters Patent Appeal, which was challenged in W.P.(S) No. 4665 of 2012, This writ petition was allowed vide order dated 27th August, 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge without giving any opportunity of being heard to the present appellants and therefore, said order may be quashed and the present Letters Patent Appeal may be allowed.

(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for Respondent No. 1, i.e. original petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 4665 of 2012, who submitted that the present Respondent No. 1 has served the appellants honestly, sincerely, diligently and to the satisfaction of the appellants from the date he was put on deputation, i.e. from 8th April, 2006 till the date he was actually relieved, i.e. 23rd January, 2012 pursuant to the relieving Order dated 16th January, 2012. Therefore, as there was no fault or lapse on the part of the original petitioner to serve the appellants for the period he was posted on deputation, he was entitled to the deputation allowance for the period he actually worked for the appellants. Further, it was not a fault on the part of the original petitioner but the appellants that concurrence of the Finance Department was not taken on expiry of the stipulated period of three years. It was the responsibility of the appellants to relieve him on time, i.e. on expiry of the deputation period and since Respondent No. 1/Original Petitioner cannot be held responsible for the lapse which resulted in his continuing on deputation even after expiry of the stipulated period, he cannot be denied the deputation allowance as long as he worked with the appellant on deputation and therefore, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be allowed.

(3.) HAVING heard counsel for the appellants and original petitioner and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal for the following facts and reasons: - -