Summary
An employee who continued serving Jharkhand for seven years after a consensual reallocation to Bihar and retired there could not obtain a belated direction for absorption in Bihar. He failed to pursue timely legal remedies to secure release, including after Bihar reported no vacancy. Jharkhand’s post-retirement order purporting to relieve him retrospectively did not revive an enforceable claim to continued service in Bihar.
Issues
- Whether the unimplemented reallocation justified compulsory absorption in Bihar after retirement from Jharkhand.
Held
- Although the 2010 reallocation was approved by both States, the employee did not timely enforce it against Jharkhand’s failure to relieve him and remained in its service until superannuation seven years later. (¶ 12)
- The later relieving order issued after retirement was of no consequence. Compulsory absorption in Bihar was inappropriate given the prolonged failure to pursue remedies, including after Bihar’s 2015 refusal, and the stated absence of vacancies. (¶ 12–13)
Result
Bihar’s appeal allowed without costs; High Court judgment directing acceptance of the employee on transfer set aside. Pending applications disposed of.