LAWS(PAT)-2015-1-108

STATE OF BIHAR Vs. VIMAL PRAKASH

Decided On January 12, 2015
STATE OF BIHAR Appellant
V/S
Vimal Prakash Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents in C.W.J.C. No.3919/13 filed this Appeal under Clause-X of the Letters Patent, assailing the order dated 15.7.2013, passed by the learned single Judge. The writ petition was filed by the respondents herein. Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondents were appointed on contract basis as Counselors-cum-Lab Technicians; in the Voluntary Counseling and Testing Centres established by the Bihar State AIDS Control Board, the 2nd appellant, between the years 2003 and 2007; at various places in the State. Their contracts were continued or reviewed, from time to time and the last of such renewals was granted on 22.7.2011 up to 31.3.2012. Though the respondents were appointed at particular places, they have been transferred to different places through the orders of the competent authority. In the proceedings dated 22.7.2011, through which the contract was extended, it was mentioned that the respondents shall execute certain agreements, at the place of their initial appointment.

(2.) The grievance of the respondents was that the appellants; and in particular appellants 2 and 3 were insisting that they must work at the place of their initial appointment, and not the places to which they were transferred, and that the remuneration was not being paid. Another grievance of the respondents was that steps were being taken to appoint fresh candidates; against the posts that were already occupied by them. With these complaints, they filed the writ petition.

(3.) The appellants opposed the writ petition by filing counter affidavit, stating inter alia, that the expression "candidates were required to sign the renewal agreement at the place of initial posting" occurring in the order of removal would connote that they had to work at those places, from the date of that renewal. It was also pleaded that since the respondents did not work at the places of the initial appointment they are not entitled for remuneration. Another plea was that it is open to the appellants to make appointments as and when necessity arises. Learned single Judge allowed the writ petition through order dated 15.7.2013 with certain directions.