SUSHIL KUMAR DUBEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are 17 petitioners before this Court and they have challenged the order dated 30.3.2006 which is contained in annexure -1. By virtue of identical orders petitioners have been discharged from service by the respondents, Sasaram -Bhabhua Central Co -operative Bank Ltd. Rohtas. This order of discharge has come about after the petitioners had rendered service under the respondents for 21 years. They also sought quashing of the resolution dated 4.3.2006 based on which the orders of discharge has come to be passed against the petitioners.

(2.) ACCORDING to petitioners they were appointed by the Sasaram -Bhabhua Central Co -operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank") in the year 1985 on daily wages. After having worked as such vide resolution dated 15.1.1988 contained in annexure -4, services of 30 persons came to be regularised. Consequent to the decision of the Board of Directors, orders of regularisation were issued and they are contained in annexure -5 series. One of them is order dated 12.5.1988 issued in favour of petitioner no. 1. Similar orders were also issued with regard to other petitioners. Petitioners submit that the Bank in question was a Co -operative Body having its own bye -laws to govern its day to day affairs and had fullest freedom to carry out its activities in terms of its bye -laws. Role of the Government in day to day affairs was limited to the powers which was given under the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act, 1935. The Government had no role to play in matters of appointment of all the staff and employees who were working under the Bank prior to 1989. Bank is to be run by the Board of Directors and they took decision in the best interest of the Society and its members. Since the respondents Bank did not even come within the definition of State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, therefore it cannot be said that they were bound by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in the matters of public employment.

(3.) PETITIONERS submit that this amendment was prospective in nature and the same did not relate back to the time when the petitioners were appointed under the Bank. The petitioners further state in the writ application that vide resolution No. 5 dated 10.6.1994 services of the petitioners were approved by the Board of Directors. The problem started after the respondents Bank regularised/approved services of only 30 persons out of many persons who were appointed on daily wages earlier. It is their case that about 54 persons were left out which caused heart burning. In fact services of those persons who were not regularised were terminated.