http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: THE BIHAR STATE WATER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI ARUN KUMAR MISHRA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/03/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          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.      The 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 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 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.      It  is   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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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 interference.      The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.