DINANATH 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/- per 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 tor 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 fince 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 on 30-6-1989, by an office order icsued 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 e have been filed as a matter of sample These petitioners have now worked for more than 1 1/2 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, thereafer, the order contained in Annexure 8 followed terminating the services of 45 persons, including these 43 petitioners.

(3.) Challenging this order of termination the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the admitted position is that the petitioners were never asked to show cause before terminating their services on the alleged ground of their appointment being illegal. As against this, the learned counsel appearing for the State contended that various reasons stated in Annexure-7, it is obvious that they had been illegally appointed.