BISHUNDEO TIWARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL eleven petitioners are aggrieved as by Office Order No.T -01 dated 28.4.2003 they have been terminated from service alongwith 16 others with effect from 28.4.2003.

(2.) Petitioners prayer is for quashing the order of termination so far it relates to them and further to direct their reinstatement on their respective posts with effect from 28.4.2003. Petitioners were working as casual employees in Bihar State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter to be referred as the Board). They were appointed by competent authority as casual employees against sanctioned posts of Class III and Class IV in between 1986 -93. The order of termination has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it has been issued on the direction of the State Government as such not an independent decision of the Board. The State Government directed for termination of petitioners service only because the petitioners moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2148 of 2003 for regularization of their service in the Board. While the writ application was still pending they have been removed from their service. Another ground which has been taken by the petitioner for challenging the impugned order is that Rule 8 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rule Act, 1974 empowers the said Board to create such posts in different pay scales as.it considers necessary provided the pay scale is not more than Rs. 2500/ - per month. In the event the posts to be created carry pay scale of more than Rs. 2500/ - per month prior sanction of the State Government is necessary. Petitioner 'scase is that for regularization of posts held by them there was no need for approval from the State Government as at the time of their entry in service, and before revision of pay, their posts carries pay scale of less than Rs. 2500/ - . In spite of that the Board of Directors in its 70th meeting decided to refer it to the State Government for approval which resulted into termination of their service. The petitioners should have been retain in service by the Board on the basis of its own. decision as the basic pay scale of the petitioners at the time of their initial appointment was not more than Rs. 2500/ -per month, and prior sanction of the State Government was not necessary.

(3.) A detail counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the. Board.