DINESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, 48 in number, appointed between April, 1982, and January, 1989, in Class IV on a daily wage of Rs. 9 par day, have now been confronted with the order of termination of their services contained in Annexures-7 and 8 passed on 30.1.1991 and 4.2.1991 respectively.

(2.) IN March, 1987, in a meeting of the Assistant Engineer and the Junior Engineer held with the Managing Director of the Samiti, it was decided to appoint these workers on muster for execution and completion of work. IN June, 1989, the Managing Director of the Samiti sent a proposal to the Administrator for creation of posts for regularising the services of some of the labourers working since 1982-84. It was also proposed that the muster roll workers, who were working since long, be regularised after interview. The proposal of the Managing Director was placed before the Administrator who was performing the duties and functions of the Board of Directors and was competent to create posts. He agreed with the proposal of the Managing Director. IN May, 1989, the interview was held and on 30.6.1989, by an office order issued by the Managing Director, the services of 26 muster roll employees were regularised in the first instance as contained in Annexure-4. IN respect of 18 other employees, similar decision was taken in November, 1989, and the employees were called to appear at the interview. Their services were similarly regularised which appears from Annexure-6. These Annexures-4 and 6 have been filed as a matter of sample. These petitioners have now worked for more than 11/2 years even after regularisation of their services. Thereafter, on 30.1.1991, the impugned order contained in Annexure-7 was issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government in the Co-operative Department directing the Managing Directors to terminate their services on the ground that their appointments had been illegally made and, thereafter, the order contained in Annexure-8 followed terminating the services of 45 persons, including these 43 petitioners.

(3.) THE admitted position is that these petitioners were appointed as daily rated employees between April 1982 and January 1989 and their services were regularised after interview. Even after regularisation of their services, they served for nearly 11/2 years when the order of termination was issued. It has not been disputed that these orders were passed without affording any opportunity to them to show cause as to how their appointments were being treated as illegal after long years.