Judgment:
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI WP(S)Nos.4118,4128&4305of2013 KarmaNathJha ... PetitionerinWP(S)4118/2013 DashrathPrasad ... PetitionerinWP(S)4128/2013 BashistaNarayanChoudhary PetitionerinWP(S)4305/2013 Versus TheStateofJharkhandandors. ... Respondentsinallcases. CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICEAPARESHKUMARSINGH ForthePetitioners :Mr.RishiPallawa FortheRespondents :M/s. Jai Prakash, Sr. Advocate, Chaitail Sinha, J.C. to A.A.G & Anshuman Kumar,J.C.toSr.S.C.I. 523.8.2013 Heardcounselfortheparties. Thepetitioners,inthesethreewritpetitions,areaggrievedby theofficeorderdated28.6.2013ascontainedinmemono.781issued by the Director, Department of Soil Conservation, Government of Jharkhand,Ranchi,whereundertheirserviceshavebeenhandedover totheDirectorateofAgriculture. TheparentcadreofthesepetitionersisadmittedlyDirectorate ofAgricultureandnotDirectorateoftheSoilConservation,whichis notindispute.TheservicesofthepetitionersinW.P.(S)No.4118of 2013 were handed over by the Directorate of Agriculture to the DirectorateofSoilConservationinMarch,2006.Theservicesofthe petitionersinW.P.(S)No.4128and4305of2013werehandedoverby theDirectorateofAgriculturetotheDirectorateofSoilConservationin theyear2009. These petitioners were posted asAssistant Soil Conservation OfficersatPotka,NawaandBarhetrespectivelyintheDirectorateof Soil Conservation. However, they have been transferred to the Directorate of Agriculture by which they have been aggrieved. The grievanceofthewritpetitionersisthattheimpugnedorder,whichhas beenpassedinrespectof7personsincludingthesethreepetitioners, has been done in a pick and choose manner. The basis of such repatriationtotheparentDirectorateofAgricultureisonthebasisof thedecisionoftheEstablishmentCommitteeoftheSoilConservation 2. Directoratedated28.6.2013,accordingtowhichtheservicesof such AssistantSoilConservationOfficers,whohavelessthantwoyearsof service remaining were to be repatriated to the Directorate of Agricultureinordertoensureprocessingofthepostretirementclaim ofsuchincumbentinanexpeditiousmanner.However,accordingto thepetitioners,thoughSevenpersonshavebeenrepatriated,thereare otherpersonsleftinthesameDirectorate,whoalsohavelessthantwo yearsofserviceandinsomecaseslessthanoneyearofservicebut they have been not repatriated to the same Directorate. In such circumstances,thesepetitionersshouldnothavebeendisturbedatthe fagendoftheirservicesbytransferringthemfromoneDirectorateto otherDirectorate.Theorderofsuchrepatriationiscolourfulexercise to get rid of unfavourable officers from the Directorate of Soil Conservation.Therefore,theyalsosubmitthattheordinarytenureof transfer and posting of an incumbent under the Government department is three years as per the Circular of erstwhile Bihar Government dated 25.10.1980. The same was also discussed and approved by the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Uttam Kujur Vs. State of Jharkhand,reportedin2008(2)JCR,306(Jhr).Insuchcircumstances, theimpugnedorderisliabletobesetaside. The respondentState have appeared and filed their counter affidavit.Itistheconsideredstandoftherespondentsthatrepatriation oftheofficershasbeenmadeinthe larger interestbased upon the resolution of the Establishment Committee at Directorate of Soil Conservation dated 28.6.2013 in order to ensure expeditious processing and disposal of post retirement benefit claims of such employees who have less than two years of service left. It is also contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the State that the servicesofthepetitionersbelongtotheDirectorateofAgriculture.
3. Their services were earlier handed over to the Directorate of Soil ConservationbytheDirectorateofAgricultureinthe year2006 and 2009 respectively for exigency of work. The petitioners do not have legalrighttocontinueintheDirectorateofSoilConservationastheir parentDirectorateisDirectorateofAgriculture.Theorderimpugnedis notanorderoftransferbutissimplyanorderofrepatriationtothe parentDirectorate.Theyarealsoundertakinganexercisetogiveeffect tothesameresolutiondated28.6.2013inrespectofotherofficersin thesaidDirectorateofSoilConservationfortheirrepatriationtothe parentDirectorateofAgriculture. Ihaveheardlearnedcounselforthepartiesatsomelengthand gonethroughtherelevantmaterialsonrecordincludingtheimpugned order.Theimpugnedorderdated28.6.2013doesnotappeartobean order of transfer. The services of seven persons, who belong to the DirectorateofAgriculture,havebeenrevertedtothesameDirectorate by the Soil Conservation Directorate by the impugned order dated 28.6.2013. These petitioners admittedly are going to retire in April, 2015, January, 2015 and January, 2014 respectively. The resolution, whichisenclosedtothecounteraffidavitoftherespondents,shows on 28.6.2013 the meeting of the Establishment Committee of the Directorate of soil Conservation was attended by five members includingtheDirectorofSoilConservation,whotookadecisionvide paragraph 2 of the said minutes, to repatriate the services of such Assistant Soil Conservation Officers to their parent Directorate of Agriculture,whohadlessthantwoyearsofserviceleft. The impugned order, as already observed, is not an order of transfer.Thepetitionersasaforesaiddonothavealegalrighttoremain in the Directorate of Soil Conservation, which is not their parent Directorate,asadmittedlytheyareofficersofDirectorateofAgriculture undertheparentdepartmentofAgriculture.Thoughsubmissionshave 4. beenmadethattheactionoftherespondentDirectorismalafidebut theyarenotsubstantiatedbyavermentmadeinthewritpetitionnor theofficerconcernedismadepartybyname.Ontheotherhand,the respondents in their counter affidavit have taken a stand that they haveresolvedtoundertakeexercisetorepatriate suchofficers,who havelessthantwoyearsofserviceleft.Therefore,inthatexerciseseven personsincludingthepresentpetitionershavebeenrepatriated. Insuchcircumstances,therefore,theimpugnedorderdoesnot appeartobeanorderoftransfer,theservicesofthepetitionershave simplybeenhandedovertotheDirectorateofAgriculture.Thereliance ofthepetitionersuponthecircularof1980tosubmitthatminimum tenureofthreeyearsisprescribedforparticularplaceofpostingdoes notapplytothepresentcase,asthesameisnotanorderoftransfer. Since the respondents themselves indicated that they are bound to carryouttheresolutionof28.6.2013intheletterandspirittakinginto accountofsuchfactorsincludingtheexigencyofwork,itisexpected thatsuchanexerciseshouldbecarriedoutinanuniformmannerby theDirectorateofSoilConservation.TheSecretaryoftheAgriculture Departmentmayalsolookintothemattersothatnoheartburningis causedamongtheofficers,whoaretoberepatriatedtotheAgriculture departmentfromtheSoilConservationdepartment. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the reasons indicatedhereinabove,Idonotfindanygroundtointerferewiththe impugnedorder dated28.6.2013. Therefore,thesewritpetitions are, accordingly,dismissed. (ApareshKumarSingh,J.) Pandey