RAM CHANDRA SHAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are altogether 20 petitioners in this writ application and they seek quashing of letter dated May 15, 1995 contained in Annexure-2 issued by the Executive Engineer, Western Koshi Canal Division, Darbhanga by which a direction was given to terminate the services of 32 daily wage employees including several petitioners, after payment of compensation in . terms of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. A further prayer has been made to take back in service other petitioners not covered by Annexure-2 whose services are admitted to have been similarly terminated. Petitioners have further challenged a policy decision of the Government dated June 18, 1993 contained in Annexure-3 by which it was decided to terminate the services of those daily wage workers working in different undertakings of the State Government who had been appointed after August 1, 1985. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the policy decision contained in Annexure-3 is arbitrary because August 1, 1985 has been arbitrarily chosen as a cut-off date for cancellation of illegal/irregular appointments. In this regard, a perusal of para 1 in Annexure-3 shows that on earlier occasions, directions had been issued regulating appointment of daily wage employees against sanctioned vacant posts and ultimately order was issued not to make such appointments and keeping in view the ban imposed on such appointments August 1, 1985 was treated as a cut-off date whereafter in view of such ban the appointments made on daily wage basis were directed to be treated as illegal and consequently policy decision was taken to cancel such appointments. In my view, the aforesaid policy decision, of the Government suffers from no legal infirmity and no fault can be found with the cut-off date chosen on the basis of ban imposed on such appointments.

(2.) The next contention on behalf of the petitioners is that some persons similarly appointed and retrenched like the petitioners had moved the Labour Court, Bhagalpur vide Reference Case No. 10 of 1988 and an award dated December 31, 1990 was passed in their favour for appointing those employees on permanent basis and when the said award was challenged before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1175 of 1993 then this Court dismissed the said writ petition on December 21, 1995. On this basis, Article 14 was invoked by the petitioners to plead that they should be treated equally and similar relief should be granted by this Writ Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State referred to paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit to show that the petitioners have been appointed on or after August 1, 1985 and on the basis of paragraph 24 of the counter affidavit, it has been shown that the petitioners in reference case No. 10 of 1988 before the Labour Court, Bhagalpur, were-engaged on daily wages between August 1979 to October 1982. From Annexure-3, it appears that the policy decision of the State was that those who were engaged on daily wage basis and had completed more than 240 days prior to August 1, 1985 should be given weightage for regularising their services. Considering the aforesaid facts, it cannot be said that the petitioners of Reference Case No. 10 of 1988 were similarly situated as the writ petitioners and hence, no relief can be granted to petitioners on the basis of Article 14.