Employee Transfer Dispute: Supreme Court Decision on Bihar vs. Chaitraya Kumar Singh

The case revolves around the employment dispute of Dr. Chaitraya Kumar Singh, an Ayurvedic Medical Officer originally appointed in Bihar, who was later allocated to Jharkhand after the state bifurcation in 2000. The Supreme Court had to determine whether he could claim employment in Bihar after his retirement in Jharkhand.

Dr. Singh was appointed as an Ayurvedic Medical Officer in Bihar in 1989. Following the bifurcation of Bihar and Jharkhand in 2000, he opted to continue in Bihar, but in 2007, the Union Government allocated him to Jharkhand. He joined Jharkhand’s service but later requested a transfer back to Bihar. His request was approved in 2010, yet Jharkhand did not relieve him, forcing him to continue working there until his retirement in 2017.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The State of Bihar, represented by Mr. Devashish Bharuka, contended that although Dr. Singh was allocated to Bihar in 2010, he continued to work in Jharkhand until his retirement. Bihar argued that since no vacancy existed for him in Bihar, he could not be accommodated. Furthermore, the state highlighted that Dr. Singh had ample time to seek legal remedies to enforce his transfer but failed to do so.

Respondent’s Arguments

Dr. Singh, represented by Mr. Manoj Tandon, argued that his allocation to Bihar was never withdrawn and that he consistently tried to join Bihar but was never relieved by Jharkhand. He claimed that he should be considered a Bihar employee based on the official notification transferring him.

Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court, with Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee presiding, ruled in favor of Bihar, overturning the previous High Court judgment. The Court stated:

“The first respondent took no steps to pursue his legal remedies when he was aggrieved by the decision of the State of Jharkhand not to relieve him from service so as to enable him to join the State of Bihar. Having now attained the age of superannuation in the State of Jharkhand, the State to which he was originally assigned, it would be manifestly inappropriate to direct that he should be absorbed by the State of Bihar.”

The Supreme Court emphasized that Dr. Singh had failed to act in time and had continued to work in Jharkhand for seven years. Consequently, Bihar was not obligated to accept his employment post-retirement.

Implications of the Judgment

• Employees transferred between states must ensure legal enforcement of their transfers promptly.
• Failure to act within a reasonable time can lead to forfeiture of employment rights.
• States cannot be forced to employ retired individuals based on past transfer orders.

This ruling sets a precedent for employment disputes involving state bifurcation and employee reallocation.

Petitioner Name: State of Bihar & Ors.
Respondent Name: Dr. Chaitraya Kumar Singh & Ors.
Judgment By: Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Indira Banerjee.
Place Of Incident: Jharkhand, Bihar.
Judgment Date: 19-07-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: State of Bihar & Ors vs Dr. Chaitraya Kumar Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 19-07-2019.pdf