NAND KISHORE THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. These three writ petitions, which have been heard together as common points are involved, are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioners are the employee of the Bihar State Khadi and Village Industrial Board (In short, 'the Board'). In C.W.J.C. No. 3959 of 1997, the petitioner seeks direction for payment of salary for the post of Typist in the scale of Rs. 1,320 -2,040 from June, 1994 till date. He was initially appointed on the post of Peon on 6,4.1971. Pursuant to the decision of the Establishment Committee of the Board held on 17.4.1990, he was promoted against Class -III post of Typist on 14.5.1990. He received his salary of the post of Typist till May 1994. The Employees' Union of the Board filed a writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 12124 of 1993, in this Court seeking direction for regular payment of salary to the employees which was allowed on 18.1.1996. The petitioner, thereafter, made representation on 3.3.1997 for payment of salary for the post of Typist but to no avail. According to the respondent -Board, the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Typist was illegal as the Board is not competent to grant any promotion without the approval of the State Government. In fact, a general direction was issued by the Administrative Department, namely, Industries Department of the State Government, vide letter No. 5373 dated 19.4.91, not to pay salary to such employees who have been appointed or promoted or adjusted against different posts without approval of the State Government. In C.W.J.C. No. 5773 of 1997, the petitioner seeks quashing of the office order No. 115 dated 8.6.92 of the Board staying his alleged irregular appointment on the post of Typist. The said order has been issued in the light of the aforesaid direction of the State Government contained in letter No. 5373 dated 19.4.91. He further seeks quashing of the Board's office order No. 662 dated 31.7.97 cancelling his appointment/adjustment against the post of Typist in the general establishment of the Board and reverting him to the Central Godown, Patna on the same post. Copies of the said two orders have been marked Annexures 4 and 6 respectively to the writ petition and the amendment petition. The facts of the case are similar. This petitioner was initially appointed as Typist in the Central Godown of the Board at Patna on 21.7.73. On 1,3.76, his services were transferred to the Head Office where he has been working ever since. On 21.4.90 the Establishment Committee of the Board decided to adjust the petitioner in the scale of Rs. 1,320 -2,040 with effect from 1.4.90. An office order giving effect to the said decision was issued on 27,4.90. According to him, on 8.6.92, his adjustment in the scale of Rs. 1,320 -2,040 was stayed but he continued to receive his salary in the aforesaid scale up to May 1994. After the judgment in C.W.J.C. No. 12124 of 1993 (Supra), he filed representation and also several notice through lawyer but without any result. In this case, the State of Bihar has filed a counter -affidavit. Stand has been taken that the absorption of the petitioner as Typist in the general establishment of the Board by the Establishment Committee was without the approval of the Bureau of Public Enterprises and the Government. The petitioner's adjustment in the scale of Rs. 1,320 -2,040 was a working arrangement and not a regular appointment against sanctioned post and the same has rightly been cancelled. The Board has also filed counter -affidavit, taking similar stand as in C.W.J.C. No. 3959/97. Additionally, it has been stated that the Secretary (of the Board) was not competent to make initial appointment on 21.7.73 and that the writ petition has been filed after delay of 5 years (reckoned from the date of the order dated 8.6.92) by which the adjustment of the petitioner in the aforesaid scale was stayed. In C.W.J.C. No. 7663 of 1997, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order of the State Government contained in letter of Industries Department bearing No. 3405 dated 28.5.97 refusing to approve the absorption of the petitioner on the post of Ledger Keeper, and the consequential order of the Board contained in its office order No. 501 dated 19.6.97 cancelling the absorption of the petitioner on the post in the scale of Rs. 1,200 -1,800. The petitioner further seeks a direction to pay him his due salary of the post of Ledger Keeper. The facts of this case are these. On 31.3.1981, the petitioner was appointed as salesman in the scale of Rs. 205 -284. On 26.5.84, he was asked to perform duties in the Accounts Section in the general establishment of the Board. According to the petitioner he started working as Ledger Keeper/Bill Clerk in the Accounts Section of the Board pursuant to the said order but in the same pay scale. On 17.4.90 the Establishment Committee decided to absorb him against the vacant post of Ledger Keeper, it is stated that as many as six posts of Ledger Keeper were vacant at that time. On 21.4.90 office order was issued appointing him on the said post in the scale of Rs. 1,200 -1,800/ -. The order was cancelled on 29.4.91 in the light of the aforesaid letter No. 5373 dated 19.4.91 of the Industries Department. However, while issuing the said order of cancellation on 29.4.91, the Chief Executive Officer represented the case of the petitioner. According to him, despite the above orders the Board continued to take the work of the post of Ledger Keeper until the impugned order as contained in letter of the Industries Department dated 28.5.97 (Supra) was issued. Copies of the aforesaid letter/order dated 28.5.97 and 19.6.97 are Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition. In this case also, the stand of the Respondents is that the absorption/appointment of the petitioner on the post of Ledger Keeper in the scale of Rs. 1,200 -1,800/ - was irregular as the same was made without the approval of the State Government.

(3.) It would thus appear that in all the three cases, the impugned action has been taken in the light of the direction of the State Government contained in letter No. 5373 dated 19.4.91. From the perusal of the said letter, it appears that the direction has been issued purportedly in terms of the provisions of Section 30 of the Bihar Khadi and Village Industries Act, 1956, as amended by Bihar Khadi and Village Industries (Amendment) Act, 1981. Counsel for the petitioners have challenged the competence of the State Government to issue a direction of that kind under Section 30 of the Act.