LAKSHMI NARAIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are five petitioners in this case who are working on different class IV posts in the Employees State Insurance Scheme, under the Labour, Planning and Training Department, Government of Bihar. They seek to challenge promotions given to respondents 6 to 13 to class III posts on the basis of a limited selection made from amongst the class IV employees of the Scheme.

(2.) BEFORE proceeding further to examine the grievance of the petitioners, it may be noted that during the pendency of this writ petition, promotion given to respondents 12 and 13 was cancelled retrospectively from the date of the promotion on the basis of some departmental enquiry and a review made by the departmental committee which found that promotion was wrongly given to those two respondents. They filed C.W.J.C. No. 4272/95 challenging the order dated 5.6.1995 by which the order of their promotion/appointment to class III posts, issued on 12.2.1993, was cancelled from the date of its issuance. By order dated 11.9.1995 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court that writ petitions was allowed mainly on the ground that before issuing the impugned cancellation order, no show cause notice was given to the concerned employees (Respondents 12 and 13 of this writ petition). While allowing the writ petition and directing their reinstatement, this court left it open to the respondents, the State officials, to give show cause notice to them and to any other similarly situated persons and to pass fresh orders in accordance with law after considering their reply to the show cause.

(3.) MR . Chandrashekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf or the petitioners in this case stated that despite the liberty given by this court to the official respondents, no show cause was given to the concerned employees, respondents 12 and 13 in this case and after their reinstatement as directed by this court, they were simply allowed to continue in service. Mr. Chandrashekhar submitted that the omission to give show cause notice to the concerned employees and to take the matter to its logical conclusion clearly amounted to an act of malafide on the part of the official respondents and it simply indicated that they were favourably inclined towards the respondents in this case. I am unable to accept the submission and to read any signs of malafide in the aforesaid circumstances.