NAGESHWAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a batch of twenty-four writ applications made by twentyfour discharged Karamcharis. Originally, all of them filed one joint petition which is M. J. C. No. 687 of 1957. This petition has now heen confined to the case of petitioner No. 22 only and the other twenty-three petitioners have filed separate petitions which are numbered as M. J. C. 100 to 106, 114 to 127, 204 and 205 of 1958. All of them have been heard together and this judgment will govern them all. In the course of the judgment reference will he made to the petitioners and annexures as given in the original application, namely, M. J. C. No. 687 of 1957.

(2.) The petitioners were Karamcharis in the district of Patna employed in the Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar. They have been discharged from their services. They have, therefore, made these applications under Article 225 of the Constitution of India for issu'e of writs quashing the orders of discharge passed against them and directing the respondents to pay to them their emoluments. Cause has been shown by the State of Bihar (Respondent No. 1) on whose behalf a counter-affidavit sworn by one Ramadhya Dwivedi, law clerk of Dinapore Subdivisional Office in the district of Patna, has been filed.

(3.) Letters of appointments were issued to the petitioners by the Additional Collector of Patna, respondent No. 3. In most of these letters it is stated that the appointments have been made by the Collector of Patna, respondent No. 2, but in some of them there is no such statement. According to the case of the petitioners, however, all of them were appointed by the Collector, respondent No. 2, and this fact has not been challenged by the respondents. All these letters clearly recite that the appointments were purely on temporary basis and liable to be terminated on one month's notice. It will be convenient to reproduce, by way of sample, the contents of one of those letters in which it is stated that the appointment was made by the Collector and also the contents of one of those letters in which there is no such statement, because in all other respects and especially with regard to the terms of the appointment they are practically similar. Annexure "C" is the appointment letter of Sri Kameshwar Singh, petitioner No. 8 and it runs as foilows :