LAWS(PAT)-2018-11-18

RAM SAGAR PASWAN Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On November 26, 2018
RAM SAGAR PASWAN Appellant
V/S
THE STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is feeling aggrieved by a common judgment and order of a learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petitions were dismissed that the writ petitioners in the respective writ petitions are before this Court in this batch of intra Court appeals. While LPA No.1631 of 2010 arises from the judgment and order passed in CWJC No.2420 of 1997, LPA No.1636 of 2010 arises from the judgment and order passed in CWJC No.2419 of 1997 and LPA No.438 of 2011 arises from the judgment and order passed in CWJC No.1204 of 2002.

(2.) For the sake of convenience we would be referring the pleadings made in LPA No.1631 of 2010 unless clarified with specific reference to the other two appeals.

(3.) The appellant-writ petitioners in the batch of appeals were appointed on Class III post of Clerk by a selection committee chaired by one Ram Yatan Paswan, the then Regional Deputy Director of Education, Magadh Division, Gaya following the selection process initiated in the year 1994. These appointments were suspected on the procedure followed as well as the jurisdiction of the committee to make such appointment and which led to a decision dated 31.12.1996, whereby it was resolved to terminate the services of all the employees appointed by Ram Yatan Paswan, the then Regional Deputy Director of Education, Magadh Division, Gaya. It is following such decision that the salary of the employees were kept in abeyance by an order passed on 14.02.1997 and it is feeling aggrieved by such action that these appellants as writ petitioners came before this Court in separate writ petitions as discussed above, which were dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide common judgment and order dated 13.07.2010. Feeling aggrieved that the present batch of appeals were filed by the writ petitioners and which were heard analogous and allowed in part by a coordinate Bench vide judgment and order passed on 03.02.2012, whereby the claim of the appellant-writ petitioners in the three appeals was upheld except appellant nos.2, 3 and 4 in LPA No.1636 of 2010, namely, Surendra Kumar, Suresh Kumar Pradeep and Mohan Paswan respectively, inter alia, on grounds that their relatives were the members of the Divisional Establishment Committee. Their services rendered was, however, directed for being counted for the purpose of retiral benefits and since no termination order had been issued by the respondents as yet that all these appellant-writ petitioners were held to be in service.