DEVESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to give him the benefit of continuity and seniority in service with consequential benefit of annual increment and first time -bound promotion from the date of his first joining as his services were terminated and the validity of which was challenged by him in this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8373 of 1988 which was finally allowed and the impugned order of termination was quashed vide judgment and order dated April 27, 1995 contained in Annexure 1 and further prayer is for direction to the respondents to pay all his arrears till date with interest.

(2.) In short, the relevant facts are that pursuant to the order of appointment dated August 1, 1988 made by the Managing Director of Madhepura -Supaul Central Co -operative Bank Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Bank', petitioner joined on the post of Assistant -cum -Cashier in the Bank on August 2, 1988. However, within 16 days of his joining the District Magistrate -cum -Administrator of the Bank (Respondent No. 2) issued termination order on August 18, 1988, the validity of which was challenged by the petitioner along with few others who were also served with similar order of termination in the aforementioned writ case. This Court vide judgment and order contained in Annexure 1 quashed the said order of termination and directed that the management must within a period of seven days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the judgment allow the writ petitioners to work in terms of appointment letters dated August 1, 1988 issued to them. However, the Court simply clarified that the writ petitioners are not entitled to be paid any salary for the period from August 18, 1988 till the date of reinstatement, but, however, they will be paid their salary for the period they worked during August 2, 1988 and August 17, 1988. The respondents filed appeal bearing LPA No. 464 of 1995 against the said judgment of the learned single Judge which was dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated December 12, 1995, contained in Annexure 2. It appears that meanwhile, the respondents also filed Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court of India against the aforesaid judgment of the learned Judge and on May 10, 1995 the Supreme Court extended the time granted by the High Court for ten days for taking writ petitioners into service and observed that in the meantime, they might approach the High Court by way of Letters Patent Appeal.

(3.) It appears that the said order of termination was passed in view of the order issued by the Registrar imposing ban in making such appointments. The Division Bench in the said judgment held that the Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Bihar has no authority to put complete ban on the appointments in the Bank under Rule 33 of the Bihar Co -operative Societies Rules, and further that the appointment of the petitioners was validly made. Accordingly, the judgment of the learned single Judge allowing the writ application though on a different ground was upheld. Thereafter, the respondent -Bank again filed Civil Appeal No. 9875 of 1996 in the Supreme Court which was dismissed vide order dated August 5, 1998, contained in Annexure 3, and directed the respondent -Bank to comply with the orders of the Division Bench by reinstating the writ petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. It was, however, made clear that the writ petitioners shall not be entitled to back wages. Whereafter, an order of reinstatement was issued and pursuant to it the petitioner joined the same post on November 18, 1998. However, when continuity and seniority in service and other consequential benefits of annual increments and time bound promotion pursuant to the initial order of appointment were denied, the petitioner filed several representations and gave legal notice also. The respondents did not take any action on the said representation which compelled him to file the present writ petition.