BIHARRAJYASHAHKARITAPRABANDBAK SANGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ application the petitioners pray for quashing of the decision of the Government communicated by the Deputy Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department by letter dated 9th March, 1992 (Annexure 1) whereby their representation for sending the list of surplus paid Managers of different Cooperative Societies prepared by the Finance Department of the State of Bihar for absorption against different class III posts under the respondent-State in its different departments have been rejected and further for issuance of a direction to the Secretary of the Personnel and Adminstrative Reform Department to send the list of such surplus Paid Managers including the names of petitioner Nos. 2 to 10 for absorption against different Class III posts under the respondent State on the basis of the said list.

(2.) In short, the case of the petitioner is that petitioner No. 1 is an Association of the Paid Managers posted in different Co-operative Societies under the control of the Co-operative Department of the State of Bihar and petitioner Nos. 2 to 10 are its membars posted as Paid Managers in different Co-operative societies |in the district of Rohtas. Mr. Mukhopadhyay, learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that for identical relief Bihar Rajya Sahkarita Prabandhak Seva Sangh, Patna had moved a writ petition being C.W J.C. No. 2312 of 1991 which has been disposed of on 18th December 1994. The learned Counsel has produced a photo copy of the judgment.

(3.) Tt appears that while the matter regarding the claim of the petitioners and others similarly situate for payment of the revised pay acale as per the recommendtion of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee was pening decision before the Government, it came to the notice of the State Government that different Primary Agriculture Societies including Co-operative Societies, where paid Managars were working, were in acute financial crisis and accordingly, the petitioner Nos. 2 to 10 becides several other such paid Managers of defferent Societies were declared surplus by the State Government, which fact has been disputed in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit as pointed out by the learned counsel for the State.