As a Senior Advocate with decades spent navigating the labyrinthine corridors of the Indian judicial system, I have witnessed countless tragedies of delay. Yet, few cases are as harrowing or as systemic as the one currently unfolding in the wake of the Bihar-Jharkhand bifurcation. It has been a quarter of a century since the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, carved Jharkhand out of the map of Bihar. While borders were redrawn and new secretariats were built, a massive segment of the population—the employees of state-owned corporations and retired pensioners—was left in a legal and financial vacuum. This is no longer a mere administrative oversight; it is a profound constitutional crisis and a generational human tragedy that mocks the very concept of the “Model Employer.”
The Genesis of Dislocation: The Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000
To understand the current impasse, one must look back at November 15, 2000. The birth of Jharkhand was a moment of political triumph and regional aspiration. However, the legal mechanics of the split, governed by the Bihar Reorganisation Act, left several grey areas regarding the apportionment of assets and liabilities. While the Act laid out frameworks for the division of government servants directly employed by the state, it remained tragically ambiguous regarding the thousands of employees working in Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs), cooperative societies, and statutory bodies.
For twenty-five years, these individuals have been the victims of a “tug-of-war” between Patna and Ranchi. When an employee asks Bihar for their pension, they are told to look toward Jharkhand because their unit was located in the new state. When they approach Jharkhand, they are told that since they were appointed by the unified Bihar government, the liability remains with the parent state. This bureaucratic ping-pong has resulted in a situation where justice is not just deferred, but seemingly discarded.
The PSU Quagmire: Abandoned by Two Masters
The most severe impact of this split has been felt by the employees of defunct or loss-making corporations such as the Bihar State Agro Industries Development Corporation, the Bihar State Leather Industries Development Corporation, and the Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation, among others. These entities, which were once the backbone of the state’s economy, became “orphan institutions” overnight.
Under the principles of administrative law, these corporations are considered “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. This means they are an extension of the government itself. However, post-bifurcation, both states have attempted to pierce the corporate veil only when it suits their fiscal interests, while hiding behind it to deny salary and pension liabilities. As a Senior Advocate, I find this stance legally untenable. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the state cannot divest itself of its responsibility toward employees of its own instrumentalities, especially during a sovereign act of reorganisation.
The Doctrine of the Model Employer
The Indian judiciary has long upheld the doctrine of the “Model Employer.” A state is expected to act with fairness, transparency, and a sense of social justice. In the case of the Bihar-Jharkhand split, the state has acted as anything but a model employer. By withholding salaries for decades and denying pensions to those who gave their lives to public service, the states have violated the fundamental right to life and dignity enshrined in Article 21. For a retired clerk who cannot afford life-saving surgery because his pension has been frozen for 20 years, the law is not an abstract set of rules; it is a failed promise.
The Landmark Kapila Hingorani Case: A Judicial Warning Ignored
The legal history of this crisis is anchored in the landmark case of Kapila Hingorani v. State of Bihar. As far back as 2003, the Supreme Court of India took suo motu cognizance of the starvation deaths of employees of various public sector undertakings in Bihar. The court was appalled that employees of state-owned corporations were dying of hunger because they hadn’t been paid in years.
The Court’s ruling was clear: the State of Bihar had a constitutional obligation to ensure that these employees did not perish due to lack of funds. The court emphasized that the right to food and the right to life were paramount. Despite this, the implementation of judicial orders has been sluggish. While some interim reliefs were granted, the final settlement of liabilities between Bihar and Jharkhand remains stuck in a cycle of committee meetings, affidavits, and adjournments. Twenty-five years later, we are still arguing about the same arrears that were the subject of litigation at the turn of the millennium.
The Failure of Post-Bifurcation Commissions
Numerous committees have been formed to resolve the asset-liability ratio. The central government, acting as the arbiter under the Reorganisation Act, has issued various directions. However, the lack of political will has stunted these efforts. The legal reality is that while the states fight over mineral rights and prime real estate in the border regions, the human “liabilities”—the pensioners—are treated as an accounting nuisance rather than a priority.
Constitutional Violations: Beyond Article 21
While Article 21 is the primary casualty, the 25-year delay also constitutes a violation of Article 14 (Equality before Law) and Article 300A (Right to Property). The Supreme Court has established in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India that pension is not a “bounty” or a matter of grace; it is “deferred wage” for past services rendered. To withhold this deferred wage is to illegally deprive a citizen of their property without the authority of law.
Furthermore, there is a clear element of discrimination. While regular state government employees transitioned relatively smoothly into the new administrative setups of Bihar or Jharkhand, corporation employees were treated as second-class citizens. This disparate treatment of two sets of employees, both of whom served the state, is a blatant violation of the principle of reasonable classification.
The Human Cost: A Generational Crisis
What the case files and affidavits do not show is the wreckage of human lives. We are now seeing a second generation of this crisis. Children of these forgotten employees have grown up in poverty, unable to afford higher education because their fathers’ salaries were never paid. We see widows of pensioners who have spent more time in courtrooms than they did in their own homes, fighting for a meager sum that was due in 2005.
The delay has created a “silent census” of deaths. Thousands of these litigants have passed away during the pendency of their cases. In legal parlance, the “cause of action” survives for their legal heirs, but the practical reality is that the justice they sought was for their own survival, which is no longer possible. When justice arrives 25 years late, it is no longer justice; it is merely a cold, posthumous accounting entry.
The “Interim Order” Trap
One of the frustrations of practicing at the Senior level in these matters is the “Interim Order Trap.” Courts, moved by the plight of the petitioners, often pass interim orders directing the state to pay a portion of the dues. The states often comply with these partially to avoid contempt of court, but use them as a shield to delay the final adjudication. The “final hearing” for the comprehensive settlement of all dues has been a mirage for two decades.
The Role of the Supreme Court and the Way Forward
The Supreme Court must now take a proactive, “cleansing” approach to this litigation. We need a time-bound, court-monitored mechanism that bypasses the bureaucratic excuses of both state governments. As an Advocate, I propose a three-pronged legal solution to end this deadlock:
First, the creation of a “Centralized Liquidation Fund” overseen by a retired Supreme Court judge. Both Bihar and Jharkhand should be directed to deposit an estimated sum into this fund, with the final adjustment of their respective liabilities to be decided later. The priority must be the disbursement of funds to the employees, not the settlement of accounts between the states.
Second, the court must invoke its powers under Article 142 to do complete justice. This includes awarding “inflation-adjusted” interest on the arrears. Paying a 1999 salary in 2024 at 1999 rates is a mockery of the economic reality. The state must be penalized for its lethargy to ensure this serves as a deterrent for future reorganisations.
Third, there must be personal accountability for the Chief Secretaries and Finance Secretaries of both states. The “Corporate Veil” of the state must be lifted to show that behind every “State” action (or inaction), there are individuals responsible for upholding the Constitution.
Conclusion: The Moral Imperative of the Law
The 25-year wait of the Bihar and Jharkhand employees is a stain on the Indian legal landscape. It represents a systemic failure of the executive to honor its promises and a challenge to the judiciary to prove that it can offer more than just empathetic words. As we move further into the 21st century, we cannot allow the ghost of a 2000-era bifurcation to haunt the lives of our elderly citizens.
Justice deferred is indeed justice denied, but in this case, it is justice decimated. The law is not merely a collection of statutes; it is a living instrument of social welfare. If the law cannot ensure that a retired teacher receives her pension or a factory worker receives his earned wages within a reasonable timeframe, then the law loses its majesty. It is time for the Supreme Court to bring the curtain down on this tragedy and ensure that the “Generation of the Split” finally finds the peace and dignity they were promised twenty-five years ago.
The state must remember that while it may have a perpetual succession, its employees do not. They are mortal, and their time is running out. The legal battle for Bihar and Jharkhand’s forgotten employees is a fight for the soul of our constitutional democracy. It is a fight we cannot afford to lose.
