Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 32 of 2016 1.The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Dhurwa, Ranchi 2.The Secretary, Dept. of Water Resources, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3.Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Abhiyantran Bhawan, Ranchi ….........Petitioners Vrs. 1.Suresh Prasad Singh 2.Nand Dev Ram 3.Ginne Paswan 4.Tal Keshwar Ram 5.Managing Director, Jharkhand Hill Area Lift Irrigation Corporation, Ranchi ….......... Respondents with Cont. Case (Civil) No. 720 of 2015 1.Suresh Prasad Singh 2.Nand Dev Ram 3.Ginni Paswan 4.Tarkeshwar Ram ….......... Petitioners Vrs. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Sri Sukhdeo Singh, Principal Secretary, Water Resources Dept., Jharkhand, Ranchi 3.Sri Surinder Kumar, Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Abhiantran Bhawan ….........Opposite Parties ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH Civil Review No. 32 of 216 For the Petitioners : Mr. Vikash Kumar, J.C to A.G. For the Respondents : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy Cont.Case (Civil) No. 720 of 215 For the Petitioners : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Vikash Kumar, J.C to A.G. Civil Review No. 32 of 216 04/07.09.2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant review petition is directed against the judgment dated 23.4.2015 passed in W.P.(S) No. 61 of 2013. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under:- “I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. It appears that deputation of petitioners was initially for a period of 3 years however they have continued till date. It gives an impression that department has felt the necessity of retaining the petitioners for so long as their services may have been required and no order of repatriation has been issued. It further appears that employees of BHALCO have been reallocated to JHALCO were according to the petitioner in the list of employees of JHALCO, name of these petitioners do not figure. It further appears that BHALCO being a body of successor State of Bihar now does not operate within the State of Jharkhand. It therefore can be inferred that either the petitioners are employees of JHALCO or they have to be -2- treated as employees of Water Resources Development after being there for such a long deputation. In the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, the decision of absorption is to be taken by the Water Resource Department based upon consideration of all relevant factors. The petitioners having continued for 15 years on deputation in the Water Resources Department may have legitimate grievances with regard to the status of their service when they are almost nearing the age of superannuation. It is therefore deemed appropriate to direct the competent authority under Respondent Water Resources / respondent no. 2 , Secretary Department of Water Resources Development to take a decision on the question relating to claim of absorption of the petitioners within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of”.
3. Learned counsel for the review petitioner- State of Jharkhand submits that the issue relating to employees of the Bihar Hill Area Lift Irrigation Corporation (BHALCO) was under consideration before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 10515 of 2013 along with other analogous civil appeals. The same has been decided by the judgment at Annexure-12 dated 22.11.2013. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the Apex Court has after consideration of totality of facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the concept of social justice under the constitution, role of a model employer in a Welfare State and conduct of both the successor State of Bihar and Jharkhand proceeded to issue certain directions contained at para 52 of the said judgment. In view of the specific direction contained at sub para viii thereof, the direction of this Court in the writ petition to consider the claim of the writ petitioners for absorption requires review.
4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners fairly submits that in view of the decision of the Apex Court, the issues decided therein have attained finality.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant material facts on record. The direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 10515 of 2013 and analogous cases at para 52 are quoted hereunder:- “52.Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the concept of social justice under the Constitution, role of a model employer in a welfare State and the conduct of both the States we proceed to issue the following directions:- (i) The employees who were paid certain amount after this Court had directed for deposit of rupees fifty crores by the State of Bihar and have not been absorbed by JHALCO, they should be paid their salary -3- from 1.1.1995 till 29.12.2001. (ii) The State of Bihar shall comply with the directions within a period of three months from today as they are aware of the names of employees who had been paid proportionally out of the deposit made earlier. (iii) The State of Jharkhand shall pay from 29.12.2001 till 13.9.2004. We have fixed the cut-off date for the State of Jharkhand as it had issued the notification on 29.12.2001 creating an erroneous impression and confusion. The date for State of Bihar has been determined regard being had to the date the Central Government took a decision asking the State of Bihar to go for liquidation. (iv) The State of Jharkhand shall pay the amount within a period of four months to those employees or their legal representatives of the employees who have received the amount in proportion from the State of Bihar. (v) The State of Bihar shall deduct the amount already paid by virtue of the order passed by this Court. However, the State of Jharkhand shall pay the entire amount of salary for the period as directed by us as it is clear from the record that it has not paid anything to the employees. (vi) Both the States shall compute the salary component after granting the benefit of pay revision which has been extended to other employees. (vii) The amount, as directed to be paid, shall be paid with 7.5% simple interest per annum (viii) The claim for absorption stands closed.”
6. In view of the specific direction at sub para viii thereof, claim for absorption of such employees of BHALCO stood closed. Consequently, the directions contained in the operative portion of the judgment dated 23.4.2015 passed in W.P.(S). No. 61 of 2013 therefore needs to be recalled. It is accordingly recalled. It is also clarified that the competent authority under the Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand is no longer required to take decision in relation to the claim of absorption of the writ petitioners as directed earlier.
7. The Review Petition is accordingly disposed of. Cont.Case (Civil) No. 720 of 215 8. Consequently, the instant contempt petition also stands disposed of. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A.Mohanty