SHEO PUJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ -petition the petitioners, 48 in number, seek a mandamus for payment of salary during the period of retrenchment. They also seek questioning of the order of the respondent -Sone Command Area development Agency (called the Agency in short) as contained in its letter dated 10.5.1991 holding their appointment, made in 1984, as fresh appointment and directing that their pay shall be fixed at the minimum of the time scale of pay as applicable in 1984. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows.

(2.) THE petitioners and others were appointed to Class III/iv posts in the Agency on different dates during 1975 -80. The services of as many as 73 such persons were terminated on different dates between 1.4.81 and 1.7.81. The matter was raised on the floor of the Legislative Assembly and referred to the House Committee called question and Call Attention committee on 22.7.81 Committee in its report dated 26.7.82 recommended their reinstatement. In due course, on 1.3.84 the State Government directed the agency to take back 68 such persons in service, apart from 5 others who had already been reinstated earlier. An office order accordingly was issued by the agency reinstating 68 persons including the petitioners on 28.3.84. Certain correspondences were made between the agency and the State Government regarding payment of salary for the interregnum during which the petitioners and others were out of job. On 12.11.84, vine letter a contained in Annexure -6 to the writ -petition, the Slate Government directed the Agency to pay them salary for the period. (From Annexure B/2 to the Counter Affidavit of the respondents, however, it appears that implementation of the said letter was stayed soon thereafter on 24.11.84 ). According to the petitioners the matter remained pending until the Agency came out with the impugned letter dated 10.5.1991 treating the 1984 appointments as fresh appointments and, thus, rejecting that.

(3.) THE respondents in their counter -affidavit have not denied that the petitioners and others were appointed during 1975 -80 and in course of time in 1981 their services were terminated. According to the respondents, however, the services were terminated as they refused to participate in the selection process which was initiated to regularise the services of the temporary employees. The respondents do not also dispute that pursuant to the government directive in the light of the recommendations of the House Committee the petitioners (and others) were taken back in the service. According to them, however, it was a case of fresh appointment and not reinstatement. As regards the claim for salary for the period in question, according to the respondents, the State Government not only stayed the implementation of its decision as contained in letter dated 12.11.84 by letter dated 24.11.84 as contained in annexure B/2 (supra) but also finally rejected the same on 5.8.85 vide letter of the Agriculture (Special Programme)Department, marked Annexure C/2 to the counter -affidavit. The aforesaid decision not to pay the salary for the period in question was also later communicated to the Secretariat of the legislative Assembly on 25.9.86 vide annexure D/2. According to the respondents, thus, the claim of the petitioners stood rejected in 1985 itself and the same cannot be allowed to be reagitated after six years. As regards letter dated 10.5.91 it has been stated that the same was issued in the light of the government directive, as contained in agriculture (Special Programme)Departments letter dated 13.6.90 (Annexure E/2) to the effect that employees working either on regular or provisional basis on 1.4.81 would be entitled to the revised pay scale recommended by the fourth Pay Revision Committee prior to the termination/retrenchment. Persons working on daily wages basis were not to be given benefit of the revised pay scales as their appointment was not made in the scale.