Manki Samad And Ors vs. The Union Of INDIA And Ors

Facts

The appellants, employees of the erstwhile State of Bihar, sought mutual transfer to the State of Jharkhand following the bifurcation of Bihar. The State of Jharkhand made recommendations for mutual transfers between December 2013 and August 2014. However, the State of Bihar neither accepted nor rejected these recommendations. Consequently, a writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 6457 of 2016) was filed. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition solely on grounds of delay. The present Letters Patent Appeal (L.P.A. No. 626 of 2018) was filed against this dismissal. The High Court noted that the writ petition was filed within three years of the cause of action arising from Jharkhand's recommendations. The State of Bihar later filed a counter-affidavit indicating a decision was made on 09.12.2015, but this decision was not communicated to the appellants.

Held

The Court found that the writ petition was filed within a reasonable period, considering the cause of action arose from the recommendations made by the State of Jharkhand for mutual transfers. The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the State of Bihar's attitude and its failure to communicate the decision dated 09.12.2015 to the affected parties. This lack of communication was considered a lapse, as it prevented the appellants from challenging the order in the writ petition. The Court held that the present L.P.A. stands disposed of in light of the order dated 09.12.2015, which the appellants and contesting respondents are now required to question before the jurisdictional forum. The Court directed the jurisdictional forum to consider Section 14 of the Limitation Act for the purpose of questioning the validity of the order dated 09.12.2015, citing a Supreme Court decision.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition on the sole ground of delay, considering the cause of action arose from the recommendations made by the State of Jharkhand for mutual transfers? 2. Whether the State of Bihar's failure to communicate its decision dated 09.12.2015 to the appellants and contesting respondents vitiates the dismissal of the writ petition on grounds of delay? Petitioner/Appellant's Argument: The appellants argued that the writ petition was filed within the limitation period, as the cause of action accrued when the State of Jharkhand made recommendations for mutual transfers. They contended that the dismissal on delay was erroneous. They also highlighted the State of Bihar's inaction and failure to communicate its decision, which prevented them from challenging it earlier. Revenue/State's Argument: The State of Bihar, in its counter-affidavit, indicated a decision was made on 09.12.2015. However, the judgment does not record specific arguments from the State of Bihar or the Union of India regarding the dismissal of the writ petition or the merits of the mutual transfer claim.