Supreme Court of India

THE BIHAR STATE WATER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONversusSHRI ARUN KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS.

Citation: 1997 INSC 249
Decided: 10 March 1997
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYG T NANAVATI

Holding

An employee who retains a lien in his parent department after transfer must be repatriated to that department if the corporation to which he was transferred is wound up.

Summary

The case concerned a permanent employee of the Bihar Irrigation Department who was transferred on deputation to the Bihar State Water Development Corporation while retaining a lien on his original post. The corporation was subsequently wound up and the employees were to be accommodated in other departments; the employee was placed in the Finance Department, which he contested on the ground that his lien in the Irrigation Department remained. The Supreme Court observed that no evidence was produced to show that his lien had been terminated or that he had been confirmed in the corporation. Accordingly, the Court held that, because the corporation was wound up and the employee still held a lien, he must be repatriated to his parent department. The Court found no error of law in the High Court’s decision and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the employee retained his lien in the parent Irrigation Department after being transferred to the Bihar State Water Development Corporation.
Whether the High Court erred in ordering the employee’s placement in the Finance Department despite the alleged lien.
Whether the employee should be repatriated to the parent department upon the winding up of the corporation.

Subjects

service lawlienpermanent employeetransfercorporate winding uprepatriationdepartmental postingconfirmation

Judgment

 THE BIHAR STATE WATER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION                                  A
                        v.
         SHRI ARUN KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS.

                             MARCH 10, 1997

            [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]                               B

      Service Law :

       Lien-Pennanent employee in Imgation Department of government of
Bihar-Subsequently-Transfe"ed to Bihar State Water Development Cor- C
poration-Later the Corporation wound up-Employees working in Corpora-
tion proposed to be accommodated in different departments~Respondent
sent to Finance Department-He challenged his placement on the ground that
he was still having lien in Inigation Department-Held, there is no evidence
to show that his lien in Inigation Department was tenninated; nor is he
confirmed in the Corporation-He was required to be repatriated to the parent D
Department.

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1978· of
1997 Etc.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.91 of the Patna High E
Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6073 of 1991.

      Basudev Prasad, R.K. Khanna and R.P. Singh for the Appellant.

      The following Order of the Court was delivered :
                                                                                F
      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.

      The specific case set up by the first respondent is that he was working   G
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          H
                                     913
    914                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1997] 2 S.C.R.

A Corporation, an attempt was made to have them accommodated in dif-
    ferent Departments. The first respondent was sent to the Finance Depart-
    ment 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
B   has been placed before us also.

           The 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
C   claim the same position. We appreciate the inconvenience of the Govern-
    ment but each case is required to be decided, in the light of the fact
    situation.

          It is ~n admitted position that when the first respondent was initially
    sent on deputation to the Bihar State Water development Corporation, he
D   was allowed to retain the lien in the parent Department and the same was
    to continue until the 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
E   Department, he was required to be repatriated to the parent Department.
    No Such step was taken.

           Under these circumstances, the view taken by the High Court, on the
    facts, cannot be said to be vitiated by any error of law warranting inter-
    ference The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No. costs.

    R.P.                                                     Appeals dismissed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "service law"Sign in to search