NAND KISHORE PANDEY, BIRENDRA KUMAR, NARENDRA NATH SHARMA AND BHUBNESHWAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ applications raise common questions of law on almost identical set of foundational facts and as such the same as being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioners of all the writ petitions is that their services have been illegally terminated, purportedly on the basis of the Judgment passed in LPA No. 675/2000 by Patna High Court which according to the petitioners has no application in their cases, in as much as, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) filed against the said judgment, the Supreme Court has passed an interim order for maintaining status quo existing as on 13.10.2003. Before adverting to the main issue, it is relevant to notice the brief facts of each case separately.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners one after the other submitted that the impugned orders of termination are wholly arbitrary and illegal. Learned counsel submitted that the question of irregularity in the appointments of the petitioners is being raised after a number of years, in some cases after 14 -15 years, and the same is wholly without any basis. Their initial appointments were made by the authorities who were then competent to appoint the petitioners. Though initial appointment of the petitioners were on temporary basis, yet their services were extended from time to time by the competent authority. The petitioners service books were opened and they were treated as regular employees and they were transferred from one place to other like other permanent government servants. According to them the irregularity, if any, in the initial appointments, lost its meaning after so many years and the respondents have no authority to raise the question of such irregularity after a long lapse of time. Learned counsel submitted that in a number of writ applications filed by the similarly situated persons who were also terminated on the same ground, it has been held in the judicial pronouncements that the services cannot be terminated on the ground of irregularity after so many years. In the said writ applications the termination orders on such grounds have been quashed. Series of the said orders have been annexed with W.P. (S) No. 1658/2004. The said orders passed in different writ applications are Annexures -11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 23 and 24. It has been submitted that on the basis of one of the orders passed by the Patna High Court, the said impugned orders have been issued but the order has been challenged in SLP (Civil) No. 7233 -7235/2003 before the Supreme Court where specific interim order has been passed by the Supreme Court to maintain status quo. But violating the said order the respondents have issued the impugned illegal orders of termination. It has been additionally argued in W.P. (S) No. 1083/ 202 that in this case the order of termination has been issued by the State of Bihar although the petitioner has been working under the State of Jharkhand after reorganization of the State and it has been already held by this Court that the authority of the State of Bihar has no jurisdiction to issue such order. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in this writ application relied on a decision of this Court in Arvind Vijay Billing v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., reported in (2001) 2 JCR 155 and submitted that the impugned orders of these writ applications are liable to be quashed even on this ground alone.