NAGESHWAR PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR WITH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the petitioners are night guards and claim themselves to be permanent employees of what is known as Bihar State Co -operative Marketing Union Limited (BISCOMAUN), an apex co -operative body, created and registered under the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act. The body in question was established way back in the year 1954. It has its own Bye -laws and a Board of Directors headed by Chairman to run the affairs. The reason why such large number of writ applications have been filed is that some of the petitioners have been issued notices dated 25.9.2006 which is Annexure -

(2.) TO CWJC No. 12645 of 2006 asking them to show cause as to why their services should not be terminated. They are about a dozen and half petitioners of this kind. The rest are aggrieved by an identical order of termination passed on 31.10.2006, one of them is Annexure -2(ii) contained in I.A. No. 5278 of 2006 filed in CWJC No. 13371 of 2006 (Ramjee Singh vs. The State of Bihar and Others). It is clarified that since both the notices for termination as well as the actual order of termination are identical it was agreed upon that since common questions of law are involved they all be heard and decided together, may be by a common order. It is in this background that all these writ applications have been heard and are being decided together. There is not much of variance in facts or the questions of law which emerge for consideration and decision. Facts of Nageshwar Prasad Singh 'scase against notice: 2. Majority of these petitioners were appointed on the post of a night guard on daily wages at Rs. 6/ - per day, some time in the year 1975 onwards. Some of the engagement orders which are on record categorically states that the engagements are purely temporary and liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason thereof. All the appointees thereafter continued to work in that capacity for many a years as would be evident from Annexure -1(i). Subsequently the Board of Directors in its meeting No. 1983 dated 23.11.1983 decided to provisionally confer status of a permanent employee on a large category of employees on the post they are holding which is reflected in Annexure -4 to the writ application. In so far as night guards are concerned there were 731. in number who were supposedly appointed between 5.4.1975 to 28.6.1983. In para 7 of Annexure -4 there is indication that these appointments were being made to carry out the activities of various projects which BISCOMAUN was carrying on at the relevant time. These were the heydays of BISCOMAUN and varied business were being carried out which included sale of fertilizers, seeds, insecticides, coal etc. Based on the decision of the Board of Directors, (Annexure -4), petitioners came to be given a pay -scale and other emoluments which was to be effective from 1.1.1984. This would be corroborated by the order which has been brought on record as Annexure -1(iii). Similar kinds of orders, it seems, were issued at the local level and all these petitioners came to acquire a kind of permanent status and performed their duties at their places of posting. All had been well thereafter till the body in question came to be superseded by the State Government and an Administrator came to be appointed to run the day -today affairs. Though the supersession was made purportedly by the State Government, in the interest of the apex body but things took a nose -dive and the financial condition of the body took a severe beating. It is not disputed at the bar and the Court also does take judicial notice of this fact that majority of employees of BISCOMAUN are not being paid salary from the year 1995 onwards. Hundreds of writ applications are filed seeking directions upon the respondents for payment of salary, past and present and at times payment of retiral dues as well.

(3.) IN the above background a decision seems to have been taken by the Board of Directors on 21.8.2005 to terminate the services of all the night guards because the Society neither had utility nor the funds to utilize the services of the petitioners. Based on the decision of the Board of Directors, the Managing Director decided to issue notices asking for a show cause as to why their services be not terminated and identical notice therefore dated 25.9.2006, contained in Annexure - 2, was issued to some employees including this petitioner. Some of the writ applications therefore is against notice to show cause, pre -termination. Facts of Ramjee Singh 'scase against termination: