RAVINDRA NARAIN THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these writ petitions filed by different set of petitioners have been heard together because petitioners in all the cases are class III or class IV employees who were appointed on temporary basis in various project of dealing with rehabilitation or land acquisition works connected with the projects in question under the Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar and their services have been terminated by impugned orders mainly on the ground that their initial appointment was not made by a competent authority or on the ground that after several years when they were asked to produce their appointment letters they failed to produce the same which led to an interference that their appointments were illegal and not made by a competent authority. The petitioners have challenged their orders of termination on more or less similar grounds. They have also made a prayer to direct the respondents to regularise their services or to accept them as regular employees.

(2.) AT the outset it is worth noticing that most of these writ petitions were admitted and ordered to be heard together on the plea that they involved common questions of law but in course of hearing in some of the cases learned counsel for the petitioners advanced arguments on facts allegedly peculiar to those cases or to some of the petitioners even in a single case filed on behalf of large number of persons. In my considered view it is not possible to take note of peculiar facts of individual petitioner but depending upon the facts and grounds mentioned in the impugned orders of termination these batch cases may be classified into three broad categories only for the sake of convenience and proper discussion of the relevant issues. For that purpose I have categorised all the cases into three categories A, B and C. Writ petitions in which the impugned orders of terminations have been passed on the ground that even after notice the petitioner failed to produce their original letters of appointment and, therefore, the appointments were deemed to be illegal, have been placed in category A which consists of CWJC Nos. 3345/97, 3822/97, 4837/97 and 4982/97. Such writ petitions wherein the impugned orders of termination have been passed on the ground that subsequent appointment of petitioners as retrenched employees by competent authority, the Director of the Department, was of no consequence because their initial appointment was itself illegal and hence, they cannot be accepted as legally retrenched employees have been categorised in category B. These include CWJC Nos. 6904/98, 10830/97, 10971/97, 11772/97 and 6596/98. In rest 10 writ petitions the impugned orders of termination are based upon a ground that the Rehabilitation Officer, who had initially appointed the petitioners, had no legal authority to make such appointments. These cases have been included in category C.

(3.) COMING to writ petition falling under category A, in CWJC No. 3345 of 1997 the services of all the 86 persons (petitioner no. 87 is an Union of employees) have been terminated on the ground that the petitioner on being asked to produce their appointment letters failed to do so and hence, their appointments must be deemed to be illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to show causes filed by various petitioners as contained in Annexure 8 and 9 series to show that there were two types of cases as per reply given by the petitioners. Some of the petitioners had taken stand in their replies that they had to submit their appointment letters with the concerned treasury in relation to payment of their salary at the initial stage and there - after they were not given back those appointment letters. The reply of another set of petitioners was to the effect that they are attaching their appointment letters along with the show cause. This fact has been pleaded in paragraph 35 of the writ petition and are borne of Annexures 8 series and 9 series. The counter affidavit does not controvert the aforesaid pleading and in fact, there is no reply to paragraph 35 of the writ petition. Through a supplementary affidavit the copies of appointment letters of 64 persons were brought on record and with regard to remaining petitioners the stand is, as noticed above, that their appointment letters were submitted in the treasury and thereafter not returned but full particulars relating to their appointment are mentioned in the service book of the petitioner. Petitioners have also pleaded in paragraph 28 of the writ petition that service book was opened for all the petitioners prior to 1990. Hence, the factum of their appointment is admitted and opening of service book, as provided under rule 288 of Bihar Service Code goes to show that petitioners were being treated like permanent employees. As per chart contained in Annexure -3 all these appointments were made between 1986 and 1989 for a short duration but they were allowed to continue and in this regard reference has been made to a letter of Director dated 13.5.1998 by which services of such temporary employees were extended until further orders.