TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) IN this application the petitioner has made a prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to pay the arrears of current salary with effect from April, 1998 together with interest. According to the petitioner, he was appointed on 1.8.1990. The appointment letter which is at Annexure -1, was issued by the Principal, Netarhat Vidyalaya. It is an office order which says that the petitioner who was not employed in any Government service was being temporarily appointed in place of one Baleshwar Ram, who expired on the same day and who was working as a Chowkidar. The appointment was made in the scale of pay of Rs. 775 -1025/ - together with admissible allowances. The said appointment, as is apparent from Annexure -1, was ad hoc in nature. According to the petitioner, by letter dated 11.8.1997 as contained in Annexure -2, his services along with others were confirmed and thereafter by Annexure -3, i.e., a letter issued by the same Principal of the Netarhat School addressed to the Commissioner, Palamau Division at Daltonganj, a recommendation was made to adjust the petitioner on the post of a Daftari from the post of a Chowkidar, both being Class IV Posts. The petitioner has submitted that although he was working continuously, yet his salary was stopped from April 1998 till the filing of the Writ Application. After he had filed the Writ Application on 17.9.1999, the respondents passed an order on 8.3.2000 which is contained in Annexure -6 of the amendment application whereby and whereunder the petitioner 'sservices were terminated with effect from 9.3.2000. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that till the order of termination. i.e., 8.3.2000 the petitioner has continuously rendered his services without any break and that the respondents have taken work from him. He has further submitted that the order of termination was passed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as neither any notice for hearing nor any notice to show cause was ever given to him prior to passing of the said order. He has further submitted that no sooner had the aforementioned order of termination been passed on 8.3.2000, he filed an amendment application before this Court wherein he made a prayer for quashing of the said order dated 8.3.2000. It may be mentioned here at this stage that the aforementioned amendment application was allowed by a Bench of this Court as early as on 27.3.2000.
(3.) IN the backdrop of the aforementioned events taking place, the petitioner has made a prayer for arrears of salary together with interest and also for quashing of the order dated 8.3.2000;