MOHAN PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these writ petitions were heard at considerable length at the admission stage as the same points are involved and as such both the writ petitions will be governed by this judgment.

(2.) IN both the writ petitions the subject matter of challenge is an order dated 18.8.1988 passed by the District Magistrate -cum -Administrator (Respondent No. 3) terminating the services of the Petitioners. The Petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 8438 of 1998 was appointed a Typist and the Petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 10751 of 1998 was appointed a Peon. Both those orders of termination have been challenged by filing these two writ petitions in 1998. Objection has been raised on the ground of delay by the learned Counsel for the Respondents but the said objection has to be considered in the on text of the facts which are stated hereunder:

(3.) FROM the aforesaid narration of facts, it is clear that the same impugned order of termination of services in respect of other co -employees of the same Bank, namely, Madhepura -Supaul Central Co -operative Bank Limited (hereinafter called the said Bank) has been quashed on merits by this Court and the same has been affirmed upto the Hon&aposble Supreme Court. There is virtually no difference between the impugned orders which have been challenged by the Petitioners in these two writ petitions and the impugned order which has been quashed on merits by this Court and which has been, as stated above, affirmed upto the Hon&aposble Supreme Court. The difference is merely in the name of the employees and about their designation. Apart from that there is no other difference. It is passed by the same authority and on the same date and in respect of the same bank and no separate reason was assigned by Respondent No. 3 in passing the present impugned orders.