Pratima Kumari Vs. Agriculture Department - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1871 of 2016 Pratima Kumari ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary/ Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & Co-operative, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi 2. The Director, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & Co- operative, Laxmi Niwas, Kanke Road, Kanke, Ranchi 3. Union of India through Under Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, having office at 3rd Floor, Lok Nayak bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi 4. The Director, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, having office at 3rd Floor, \ Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi 5. The State Advisory Committee, Bihar, through its Member Secretary, having office at Sichai Awas, Beli Road, Patna 6. State of Bihar, Department of Home (Special through its Secretary, having office at Old Secretariate, Beli Road, Patna 7. The Director, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, having its office at New Secretariate, Beli Road, Patna … Respondents --- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate For the U.O.I. : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI For the State of Jharkhand : J.C. to G.A. For the State of Bihar : J.C. to Mr. S.P. Roy --- Order No. 03 Date 12th April , 2016 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondents-Union of India.

2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 25.08.2015, whereby the services of the petitioner as a Block Agriculture Officer has finally been allocated to the State of Bihar. A further prayer has been made for quashing the office order dated 31.3.2016 by which the petitioner has been directed to join in the State of Bihar pursuant to the cadre allocation order dated 25.8.2015.

3. The facts which have been noted in the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of lady demonstrator on 3.7.1990 pursuant to which she joined as such at Kishan Vidyapeeth, Dumka. In course of her service she has been promoted to various posts and 2. presently prior to passing of order of cadre allocation, the petitioner is working as Sub Divisional Horticulture Officer at Dhanbad. The impugned order dated 25.8.2015 was passed by virtue of which the services of the petitioner was finally allocated to the State of Bihar pursuant to which the petitioner was relieved from her place of posting vide impugned order as contained in memo No. 1380 dated 31.3.2016.

4. Mr. Manoj Tondon, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed on 3.7.1990 as a lady demonstrator at Kishan Vidyapeeth, Dumka and since last 26 years, the petitioner has been putting in her services in various posts within the State of Jharkhand. It has further been submitted that the petitioner never in her entire service career was posted at a place falling in the present day State of Bihar. Learned counsel further submits that the husband of the petitioner is also at Dhanbad and without any rhyme and reason after more than 15 years of the bifurcation of the State, the petitioner has been allocated Bihar Cadre. It has also been submitted that the decision is taken pursuant to the recommendation of the State Advisory Committee and as per decision of the State Advisory Committee, since no option/ representation is received, it was decided to seek fresh option/ representation before final allocation order in respect of the employees of the Agriculture Department is issued. It has been submitted that pursuant to the decision of the State Advisory Committee, Bihar held on 17.01.2014, no option was ever sought for from the petitioner and without giving an opportunity to exercise her option, the petitioner has been shifted to Bihar and she has also been finally relieved from her present place of posting. Learned counsel therefore in view of the arguments advanced by him submits that the impugned orders dated 25.08.2015 and 31.03.2016 be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be permitted to continue to put in her service in the State of Jharkhand.

5. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for respondents-Union of India has referred to the recommendation of the State Advisory Committee and has submitted that it was finally recommended by the Committee with respect to cadre allocation pursuant to which the petitioner was relieved. Learned counsel has also referred to the representation submitted by the petitioner and has 3. stated that the same contains certain grounds which are not germane for the purposes of considering her prayer. Learned counsel further submits that as per the recommendation of the State Advisory Committee after the cadre is finally allocated, the option lies with the employees to submit a representation for reconsideration of such allocation. In support of his contention learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has relied on the decision in the case of Indradeo Paswan v. Union of India & others, reported in (2007) 7 SCC250 6. Issue with respect to cadre allocation has surfaced after 15 years of the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar. The State Advisory Committee which considered and recommended cadre division in its meeting dated 17.01.2014 has noted that in the final allocation of Prakhand Krishi Padadhikari, the petitioner and another woman employee were referred to and it was submitted that since no option/ representation is received, it was decided to seek fresh option/ representation before final allocation order in respect of the employees of the Agriculture Department is issued. However, it appears that pursuant to the meeting of the State Advisory Committee, Bihar held on 17.01.2014, the committee had recommended the final allocation order in terms of the earlier recommendation. In the minutes of meeting dated 17.01.2014 the committee has recommended that after the cadre is finally allocated, the concerned employee may submit a representation for reconsideration of such allocation.

7. In the case of Indradeo Paswan (Supra) one of the main contention of the appellant in that case was that he had worked during his tenure mostly within the State of Jharkhand and while considering such aspect it was held as follows:-

"0. Here, the State Advisory Committee has explained the position as to why the appellant had to be and had been allocated to the reorganised State of Bihar and the context in which his option to serve in the State of Jharkhand could not be accepted. We find that the reason given is not only rational but is also sustainable. The fact that the appellant had worked for a period of 7 years out of 13 years and 6 months of his service in areas which now form part of the State of Jharkhand is neither here nor there. For, most of the mines in the erstwhile State of Bihar are in areas which have now gone to Jharkhand. So, that fact does not by itself give any right to the appellant to claim that he had a right to be allocated to the reorganised State of Jharkhand.

12. We see no reason not to accept the principle adopted in Prakash 4. Chandra Sinha by the High Court that the allocation should not be interfered with on individual grievances relating to non-acceptance of options exercised, unless clear illegality or Wednesbury unreasonableness is established. The State was reorganised with effect from 20-11-2000. We are in the year 2007. It had taken almost five years for the Union of India to publish the final list of allocation regarding this Department. In the absence of any clear ground for interference found in the case, merely on the ground that the appellant had opted for going to the State of Jharkhand but had been allocated to the State of Bihar, it does not appear to be necessary or proper to interfere with the order of allocation. It is brought to our notice that the State of Bihar had subsequently informed the appellant that he had been given regular promotion to the post of Additional Director of Mines by the Department of Mines and Geology and that he could join that post. There is therefore no subsisting reason for the appellant to complain even as regards the post to be held by him in the reorganised State of Bihar. It is not necessary for us to deal with or comment on the consequences of the appellant, in spite of being relieved from the State of Jharkhand on 10-5-2005 pursuant to the final allocation, not joining the service in the reorganised State of Bihar. Suffice it to say that in this appeal we see no ground to interfere with the decision of the High Court.

8. The claim of the petitioner is that she has been working continuously for the last 26 years in the areas falling within the State of Jharkhand and such facts having not been considered in allocating the cadre, but the impugned order if considered at this stage and on a perusal of the minutes of meeting of the State Advisory Committee, Bihar held on 17.01.2014, it appears that no option was even received from the petitioner with respect to cadre allocation. The State Advisory Committee made a recommendation that representations of the employees concerned for revision of the State allocation can be considered after their final allocation.

9. The petitioner having failed to make out a case for interference in the order dated 25.8.2015 by which her services have been finally allocated to the State of Bihar and consequent order as contained in memo No. 1380 dated dated 31.03.2016 by which she has been directed to be relieved for joining the State of Bihar, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However in view of the decision of the State Advisory Committee as reflected in the minutes of the meeting liberty is always available to the petitioner to submit representation in terms of such decision with regard to final allocation of the cadre. MK (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)