(1.) : The petitioner was initially appointed on 25.6.1979 as a Peon under the Adult Education Department, Government of Bihar. Thereafter, on 25.7.1985, considering his qualification, he was appointed to a vacant class III post of Typist clerk. The Adult Education Department was later on converted into Mass Education Department under the Directorate of Primary Education. Though he belonged to the Primary Education Department, his services were taken on deputation on the post of Typist cum Clerk under the Secondary Education under the Directorate of Secondary Education .
(2.) ON the plea that the Department of Mass Education was closed with effect from 15.5.2001, the payment of salary of the petitioner was stopped. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ application being WP(S) No. 1182 of 2002 before this Court. While disposing of the writ application, this Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioners representation, both for payment of his salary as well as for his adjustment in the Directorate of Primary and Secondary Education i.e. the Department in which he was already working on a vacant post.
(3.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The stand taken by the respondents was that the petitioner is an ex employee of the Mass Education Department and consequent upon the decision of the Government of India with regard to the abolition of the Non Formal Education Scheme, all field offices including the Education Office at Palamau, where the petitioner was posted, has been closed by the State Government with effect from 16.5.2001 and all the employees including the petitioner working under this office, became out of service from 16.5.2001. While admitting the fact that the petitioner was continuing his job in the Directorate of Secondary Education on deputation at the time of the closure of his parent department, the respondents have claimed that consequent upon the abolition of the substantive post which the petitioner was holding, the question of his continuation on the post on his deputation did not arise. It is sought to be explained that due to lack of communication to the Directorate of Secondary Education about the closure of the parent office of the petitioner, the petitioner was allowed to continue to work till 25.10.2002 and he has been paid his salary till 25.10.2002.