RAM SAGAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Praveen Shankar Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Delip Jerath, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned JC to Mr. A. Allam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 (State of Bihar).

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.5.1999 as contained in Annexure -7 issued by the Managing Director of the Bihar State Seed Corporation Limited by which his services have been terminated. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to reinstate him together with all consequential benefits and also to pay to him the arrears of minimum pay scale from the date of appointment, i.e. 10.6.1985 till date of termination alongwith the admitted dues of Rs. 34,480/ - which was admitted to be payable to the petitioner vide letter dated 21.6.1999 as contained in Annexure 9. The petitioner further prays for interest at least at the rate of 10% on the said amount for non -payment till date.

(3.) THE petitioner states that subsequently by reason of a decision taken by the Fitment Committee, the pay scale of the Night Guards was approved to Rs. 775 -1025/ - in place of Rs. 350 -425/ -. Subsequently, on 29.4.1991 by Annexure 3, the Corporation approved the payment of wages to various daily wagers including the petitioner whose name was inserted at SI. No. 22. Since they were working on daily wages for several years, but were being paid less than the regular employees, therefore the petitioner alongwith others made several representations, but nothing happened. Consequently, the petitioner alongwith 5 (five) others filed CWJC No. 2185 of 1991 (R) wherein they demanded inter alia for payment following the principle of equal pay for equal work and also made a prayer for regularization of their services. By Judgment dated 14.1.1998 the aforementioned Writ Application was allowed with an observation that the petitioner had apparently a good case for getting regular pay scale and for being absorbed on regular post. It was accordingly directed that the respondents should give regular minimum pay scale to the petitioners at par with equivalent posts which are being given to other Government Institutions/Undertakings and if they could not be regularized against sanctioned post then the Corporation should evolve a rational principle for purposes of absorption against regular posts as and when available, but till then they should be paid the minimum pay scale. The petitioner has stated that in the aforementioned Writ Application the respondents had filed a counter affidavit wherein they had stated that in the year 1986, 34 posts had been sanctioned by the Bureau of Public Enterprises but since the Managing Director had retired, therefore, no steps could be taken for filling up those posts. Later on however, the Department of Agriculture cleared 78 posts in total including those 34 sanctioned posts. The petitioner has further stated that he was working to fullest satisfaction of all concerned but there was no attempt on the part of the respondents to comply with the judgment delivered in CWJC No. 2185 of 1991(R). This resulted in filing of a Contempt Application bearing MJC No. 383 of 1998(R) in which the opposite parties filed a supplementary show cause wherein they stated on oath that pursuant to the judgment delivered in the Writ Application, the Board of Directors had taken a decision to give minimum pay scale to daily wage earners parallel to permanent employees of the Corporation till the process of regularization of their services was not complete. Consequently, the Contempt Application was dropped by order dated 1.7.1999 (Annexure 5). It appears that before all this had happened and before the Contempt Application had been dropped, a notice to show cause had been issued on 21.5.1998 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated on the sole ground that there was a direction from the Agricul -tural Department that all appointments of daily wagers made after 1.8.1985 should be terminated. Thereafter it appears that the petitioner 's services were terminated by order dated 29.5.1999 (Annexure 7), but this fact appears to have been cleverly suppressed before the Contempt Court when the Contempt Application was dropped on the assurance of the Corporation that the Board of Directors had taken a decision to pay the minimum pay scale to daily wagers parallel to the permanent employees of the Corporation till the process of regularization was not complete.