ASHOK KUMAR MATHUR, CJ. - (1.) Both these appeals arise out of a common order dated February 26, 2001 passed by the Learned single Judge in W.P. No. 1220(W) of 1999 which was heard analogously with W.P.No. 16288 (W) of 1998, therefore they are disposed of by a common order.
(2.) The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of both these appeals are that the writ petitioners were employed on contract basis for modernization of Durgapur Steel Plant. In 1994 the writ petitioners alongwith others filed a writ petition being C.O. No. 20095 (W) of 1994 praying for permanent absorption. On September 16, 1994 the learned single Judge directed an order of status quo. During pendency of this writ petition on October 14, 1995 all these writ petitioners entered into the chamber of Mr. V. Shankaranan, General Manager (Modernisation), Durgapur and misbehaved with him. He was kept in confinement in the room and the writ petitioners exhibited their private parts by opening the trousers. The ash tray was removed from the table and thrown violently and the glass shutters of the shelf were broken. He was also prevented from taking medicines as he was a heart patient and they prevented other persons to come to the rescue of the General Manager. Against these wrongful activities of the writ petitioners an FIR was lodged and a criminal case being C.R. No. 970/1995 was launched. However, this criminal case resulted in acquittal of the writ petitioners as the complainant himself was not available as he had since retired. During the pendency of the said writ petition on November 9, 1995 charge sheets were also issued against these writ petitioners for their misconduct and they were placed under suspension on October 20, 1995. The writ petitioners challenged the order of suspension by filing another writ petition being W.P. No. 16288 (W) of 1998. The writ petitioners also filed another writ petition being W.P. No. 1220(W) of 1999 for quashing the disciplinary proceeding and stay of proceeding, but learned single Judge granted liberty to the management to proceed with the inquiry but final order was directed not to be passed without leave of the Court. During the pendency of these two writ petitions, the earlier writ petition being CO. No. 20095 (W) of 1994 came up for hearing before the Learned single Judge. The said writ petition was dismissed by Justice Ajay Nath Ray on June 24, 1999 granting liberty to the respondents to recover all the sums paid to these writ petitioners. The writ petitioners preferred an appeal against that order (MAT No. 2169 of 1999). The said appeal was also dismissed. In pursuance of the order passed by the Learned single Judge in C.O. No. 20095 (W) of 1994, the respondents retrenched these writ petitioners from service with effect from June 25, 1999. The Writ petitions being W.P. No. 16288(W) of 1998 and W.P. No.l220(W) of 1999 came up before the Learned single Judge and the same was heard analogously. The learned single Judge observed that the suspension of the writ petitioners were unwarranted as the services of the writ petitioners were terminated and there was no purpose for continuing the disciplinary proceeding as the relation between the petitioners and the respondents had come to an end with the termination of their service and he quashed the suspension order. The Learned single Judge allowed both the writ petitions and directed the respondents to pay to the writ petitioners the difference of subsistence allowance and full pay along with interest at the rate of 12% and awarded cost of Rs. 5000/-. Aggrieved against this order both these appeals have been preferred by the appellant.
(3.) The first and foremost question is that what is the position of the petitioners. The petitioners were appointed on contract basis as data processing operator in the modernization project of Durgapur Steel Plant. These writ petitioners were employed in this modernization project. After completion of the modernization project the services of these petitioners were sought to be terminated with the efflux of time as the appointment of the petitioners were on contract basis. Therefore, after expiry of the contract period their services were to be terminated but somehow they filed a writ petition [C.O. No. 20095(W) of 1994] and obtained a stay order and that stay order continued till the writ petition was dismissed on June 24, 1999. At the time of dismissal of the writ petition the learned single Judge directed that all monies drawn by these writ petitioners during the continuation of the stay order should be recovered from these writ petitioners as they had no right to the post. Aggrieved against this order they preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court in its order directed that the monies already drawn by these writ petitioners should not be recovered. However, that appeal subsequently stood dismissed.;