R.K. Merathia, J.
1. In this case, one of the question arises as to who amongst the successor State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand is to accept the petitioner's joining, the order of suspension having been set aside?
Apart from this, the following questionhas been referred to the Division Bench :--
In the circumstances, the questionarises whether the ratio laid down in'Arvind Bijay Bilung', 2001 (3) Jhr. CR155 (Jhr), applies in the case of thosewho are on deputation in one or otherdepartment/organization or not.'
2. The facts in this case are not in dispute. The services of the petitioners was placed on deputation by posting order No. 1206/97 dated 12.6.1997 in the Police District of Dhanbad by the State of Bihar, prior to the re-organization of the State. The petitioner was discharging his duties as Sub-Inspector, Rail District, Crime Branch. Dhanbad when the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Re-organization Act') came into force. The petitioner continued to receive his salary from the State of Bihar for several months even after 15th November, 2002 when the Reorganization Act came into force. The petitioner was suspended by order dated 26.5.2001 issued by Superintendent of Police (Crime), Crime and Investigation Department, Bihar, Patna w.e.f. 1.2.2001 and he was directed to report to the said department at Old Secretariat Patna.
3. The petitioner challenged the said order of suspension and also prayed for arrears of salary since May, 2001 and also the current salary, by filing W.P. (S) No. 5799/2001. The said writ petition was allowed by order dated 12.2.2002 by learned Single Judge mainly on the basis of judgment of this Court in the case of Arvind Bijay Billing reported in 2001 (3) JCR Page 155 (Jhr) wherein it was held that under Section 74 of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000, a person who was holding or discharging duties of any post or office in connection with the existing State of Bihar prior to November 15th, 2000 he will continue to hold the same post or office, in that successor-State under which the area falls and shall be deemed, on and from November 15th, 2000 to have been duly appointed to the post or office by the Government or appropriate authority in that successor-State under whom the posts and office falls.
4. After the Court's order, the petitioner reported to the authorities at Jharkhand, but his joining having not been accepted by State of Jharkhand, the present writ petition was preferred for acceptance of his joining in the State of Jharkhand.
5. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel for the petitioner has, though admitted that the petitioner held his 'post' at Patna but argued that as he was discharging the duties within Jharkhand, therefore, as per Section 74 itself, the State of Jharkhand will be the appointing authority of the petitioner and not the State of Bihar.
6. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand drew our attention to the statement made in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit to show that the CID is an apex organization of the State Police like Special Branch and Vigilance, which always linked to the State Police Headquarters. All the employees, Officer and personnel of CID are supposed to be posted at State Headquarters only, although they may be deputed for work at any place ail over the State, with any special or general assignment. The salary for the whole organization is centrally drawn at the State Headquarters and all of them are treated and posted in the Headquarters only. In this manner before the Division of the State, many officers and personnel were deputed in different towns now come within the State of Jharkhand from the three branches of the CID and all of them were drawing their salary from their respective Patna Headquarters and they were treated as they were posted at Patna only. It was further submitted that the petitioner has not opted for Jharkhand and in provisional cadre bifurcation also the petitioner continues in the State of Bihar.
7. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar Mr. Allam argued in support of the case of the petitioner to the effect that the State of Jharkhand is the appointing authority of the petitioner and not the State of Bihar.
8. In the judgment of Arvind Bijay Bilung (supra), it is held that the State of Bihar has no jurisdiction in respect to an employee/officer holding post in the State of Jharkhand. Similarly State of Jharkhand has no jurisdiction in respect to an employee/ officer posted in the State of Bihar, after reorganization of the State. For the determination of the issue, it is better to refer Section 74 of the Reorganization Act, 2000 which reads as follows :--
'Provisions as to continuance of officers in same post--Every person who, immediately before the appointed day is holding or discharging the duties of any post or officer in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Bihar in any area which on that day falls within any of the successor States shall continue to hold the same post or office in that successor State, and shall be deemed, on and from that day, to have been duly appointed to the post or office by the Government of, or any other appropriate authority in, that successor State : Provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a competent authority, on and from the appointed day, from passing in relation to such person any order affecting the continuance in such post or office.
9. From the plain reading of Section 74 it is clear that only those employee/officer discharging the duties of any post or office in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Bihar, in respect to such employee/office the provisions of Section 74 of the Reorganization Act, 2000 is applicable. That means if a person is not holding or discharging the duties of any post or office in connection with the affairs of the existing States, such as the persons who are on deputation, in another Government/Organization, for them Section 74 is not applicable. Therefore, the judgment of the Court in the case of Arvind Bijay Bilung (supra) is not applicable to those employees/ officers who are on deputation in any Government/other Organization. The question as referred by the learned Single Judge is answered accordingly.
10. Now the question arises, whether the State of Jharkhand or the State of Bihar is the competent authority in respect to petitioner who was holding a post under the existing State of Bihar, at Patna, but was on deputation in the Police District at Dhanbad to perform the duties.
11. Mr. Shivnath tried to persuade us that the word 'or' accruing in Section 74 of the Reorganization Act, should be read in disjunction so as to mean that Section 74 will apply to a person who immediately before the appointed date is discharging the duties even if he was not holding any post or office in the State of Jharkhand. Thus he submitted that the State of Jharkhand by virtue of Section 74 of the Reorganization Act is the appointing authority of the petitioner and not the State of Bihar.
12. To find out as to who amongst the successor State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand is the competent authority of the petitioner, it is necessary to notice the post the petitioner was holding and the State where such post was existing. As the petitioner was holding the post of Sub-Inspector at Patna, merely because he was working at Dhanbad on deputation, he can not derive the advantage of the ratio laid down by this Court in Arvind Bijay Bilung (supra).
13. It appears that the aforesaid matters were not placed before the learned Single Judge and, therefore, he had no option than to hold that the case of the petitioner was covered by the case of Arvind Bijay Bilung (supra).
14. However, the judgment of the learned Single Judge in WP (S) No. 5799/ 2001 having reached finality between the parties, there is no occasion for us to alter the decision. The fact is that the order of suspension has been set aside and therefore competent authority is bound to accept the joining of petitioner.
15. As already held, the State of Bihar being the competent authority of the petitioner, the petitioner should report to the authority concerned at Bihar for acceptance of his joining and for payment of salary.
16. The prayer of the petitioner to direct the State of Jharkhand authorities to accept the joining is rejected.
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
I agree.