Bihar State Water Development Corporation Vs. Shri Arun Kumar Mishra & Ors
 INSC 271 (10 March 1997)
RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
O R D
E R Leave granted This appeal arises from the judgment and order made on
20.11.91 by the High court of Patna in CWJC No. 6073 of 1991.
specific case set up by the first respondent is that he was working in the
Irrigation department as a permanent employee holding a lien in that post.
Subsequently he was transferred along with others to the Bihar state water development corporation the appellant .
It is an admitted position that the said Corporation has been wound up.
Consequently, instead of termination of the services of the employees working
in the corporation, an attempt was made to have them accommodated in different
departments. The first respondent was sent to the finance department which he
had challenged. His specific case is that he was still having a lien on the
post he hold in the Irrigation department. That was not controverted in the
High court by filing an affidavit. No contra evidence has been placed before us
contention of the corporation and the Government is that since the Bihar state Water Development Corporation has been wound
up, the employees have been adjusted in different departments. The order passed
by the High court would create difficulty, if similarly situated employees
claim the same position. We appreciate the inconvenience of the Government but
each case is required to be decided, in the light of the fact situation.
an admitted position that when the first respondent was initially sent on
deputation to the Bihar state water Development corporation,
he was allowed to retain the lien in the parent Department and the same was to
continue until lien was duly terminated only on his confirmation in the
Irrigation Development corporation. No evidence is placed before us to show
that his lien in the Irrigation department was terminated nor is he confirmed
in the corporation since the Bihar state Water Development Corporation was
wound up, as he was holding lien in the post in the parent Department, he was
required to be repatriated to be repatriated to the parent Department. No Such
step was taken.
these circumstances, the view taken by the High court, on the facts, cannot be
said to be vitiated by any error of law warranting interference.
appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Pages: 1 2