ARUN KUMAR RAI Vs. SECRETARY BIHAR STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order cancelling the order of appointment of the petitioner, contained in letter no. 563 dated 11.11.1989 (Annexure -5) after five years of his continuous and satisfactory service. Petitioner has also sought for direction to the Respondents to reinstate him back in regular service with all consequential benefits from the date of impugned termination, and to pay arrears of salary which he is legally entitled from the date of the impugned order and back wages for the period during which he had worked.

(2.) IN short, the relevant facts are that on 28.7.1984, petitioner was appointed as contingent worker by the Superintending Engineer, Electrical Supply Circle, Darbhanga in the Electric Supply Subdivision, Darbhanga under Mithila Area Electricity Board. The said appointment of the petitioner was subsequently approved by the General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer, Mithila Area Electricity Board and the petitioner had been doing the duty of preparation and distribution of electric bills and other work like making respective entries in the ledgers etc. The petitioner remained engaged in performing his work for the whole day since 10 A.M. to 5 P.M. in the office of Assistant Engineer, Electricity, Mithila Area Electricity Board. He had been on average preparing, distributing, accounting and posting more than 1500 bills per month. He had completed more than 240 days continuously in service and he possessed requisite qualification to hold the post. His name was also recommended by the Superintending Engineer to the Board for regular appointment. In the meantime the Board required information with regard to the contingent workers working in different zones or divisions. In pursuance thereof, the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Darbhanga furnished the detailed service record of the petitioner and recommended his case on account of continued necessity of his service. The Board vide its circular no. 78 dated 29.3.1989 (Annexure -1) had taken a general policy decision that services of all such persons who have been working on muster roll and contingent basis on whole time basis for a year or more (or the minimum prescribed statutory period) will be regularised provided there are vacancies against which they can be regularised. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Darbhanga vide letter no. 622 dated 30th May, 1989 forwarded his case with his recommendation of satisfactory performance of duty since 1984 continuously as contingent worker to the Superintending Engineer, Electrical, Darbhanga, who after considering all the facts submitted it to the General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer vide letter no. 643 dated 2.6.1989 Letter no. 622 date 30th May, 1989 has been annexed as Annexure -2. In pursuance to the said policy decision and on consideration of the facts and details regarding the petitioner he was given appointment on the post of Khalasi in the pay scale of Rs. 550 -720/ - and was posted for joining in the office of Assistant Electrical Engineer, Darbhanga (Gangwara) vide General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer Officer order dated 23.9.1989. A true copy of the said appointment letter has been annexed as Annexure -3. In compliance to the said order, petitioner joined along with medical certificate and was being paid regular salary since September and October. In the said letter of appointment it was, however, mentioned that the appointment of the petitioner was provisional and the same shall be terminated in case of disapproval by the Board. Later, on the notice served by the Bihar State Electric Supply Worker 's Union for fulfilment of their nine points demand with effect from 9.8.1989 a negotiation was held with the Union at different level and a memorandum of settlement between the Union and the Management of the Board was entered into vide Annexure -4. It is stated that the services of the petitioner along with number of other persons, who belonged to Sidheshwar Faction were terminated at the instance of other workers Union and he was communicated with the impugned order saying that his appointment was cancelled in view of the same being illegal. It is contended that the said settlement with Chakardhari faction of Union was, in fact, due to internal rivalry on account of appointment of muster roll employee, and that the name of the petitioner and one Ganesh Shanker Singh Vidyarthi who were contingent worker had been included along with 12 other muster roll employees, at the end of the list. According to the case of the petitioner, the fight was, in fact with respect to muster roll employees and they have been dragged simply because they belonged to Sidheshwar Faction. The petitioner initially filed a Title Suit No. 122 of 1989 against the said order of his termination in the Court of 1st Additional Munsif, Darbhanga ,. in which injunction was allowed and the Court direpted to maintain status quo on 18.11.1989, but the Respondents did not allow the petitioner to join the duty. Petitioner filed Miscellaneous Case No. 6 of 1991, which was rejected vide order dated 6.10.1993 and thereafter finding that the suit was unnecessarily lingering he filed an application for withdrawal of the suit for availing speedy and efficacious remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution and filed the present writ application.

(3.) MEANWHILE aforementioned another contingent worker Sri Ganesh Shankar Singh Vidyarthi, whose services was also regularised in view of the general policy decision and subsequently terminated with this petitioner by virtue of the aforementioned settlement filed C.W.J.C. No. 1859 of 1991 in this Court. This Court vide judgment dated 28.6.1996 set aside the order of cancellation of the appointment of said Sri Singh dated 8th March, 1990/2nd May, 1990 and held that the petitioner (Sri Singh) is entitled for arrears of salary from the date of termination till the date of his reinstatement and directed the Respondents to pay the same within a period of three months. The Respondent -Board preferred L.P.A. No. 657 of 1996 which after some argument was permitted to be withdrawn vide order dated 19.3.1997. It is contended that the case of the petitioner is on identical footing and his appointment has also been cancelled by the impugned order on erroneous and nonest ground as has also been found by this Court in the case of aforementioned Sri Ganesh Shankar Singh.