BABU RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who are four in number seek quashing of the orders as contained in Annexures 6 and 8. By Annexure6 the Director, Employment and Training, Bihar directed the District Magistrates concerned including the District Magistrate of Siwan district, to which the present case relates, to relieve the clerks working under his jurisdiction under the Unemployment Token Allowance Scheme. By Annexure 8 which is the consequential order, the petitioners have been relieved from their posts.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is as follows. In October 1981, advertisement was issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner (DDC), Siwan inviting applications for appointment of Clerks. The petitioners submitted their applications. By order contained in Annexure 2, on 2.4.83 they were appointed on the post in Siwan Collectorate. In course of time, they were confirmed in services by the District Establishment Committee of the Collectorate on 11.11.94 by Annexure 3 with effect from back dates as mentioned in the order. Earlier on completion often years of service they were granted first time bound promotion on 7.12.93 by Annexure 5. In the seniority list of the clerical staff of the Collectorate their names were shown vide Annexure 4. Suddenly on 1.2.99, by order contained in Annexure 6 the Director, Employment and Training directed the District Magistrate/Deputy Development Commissioner to relieve the clerks working under him under the Unemployment Token Allowance Scheme for being adjusted on the post of Clerk -Cum -Typist in different offices under the Directorate of Prosecution, pursuant to which they were relieved on 26.11.99 by Annexure 8.

(3.) THE case of the respondents is that the petitioners were appointed on purely temporary basis under a temporary scheme called State of Un -employment Token Allowance Scheme 1981'. The scheme was sanctioned from year to year till 1995 -96. The scheme thereafter lapsed resulting in non -payment of salary etc. to the employees appointed under the scheme. Meanwhile in CWJC No. 2650/96 Gyan Chand Bhardwaj v. State of Bihar, this Court directed the State to provide one clerk -cum -typist and peon each for the APPs in each district -sub -division. Pursuant to demand made by the Directorate of Prosecution, the Director, Employment and Training made available the services of 77 clerks including the petitioners for being absorbed against the post of clerk -cum -typist under the Directorate of Prosecution. Their absorption being on the equivalent posts and in the same scale the petitioners cannot make any grievance. A writ petition making similar grievance filed by Awadhesh Jha and Ors. CWJC No. 4947/99, has been dismissed by this Court.