Vikramaditya Prasad, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) ALL these writs have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same facts and same Annexure A of the counter affidavit filed in WP(S) No. 3769 of 2002. This Annexure A is Annexure 11/A of this writ. Annexure A shows that the appointments made to Class III and Class IV posts in the Mechanical Division of the Road Construction Department were found to be made against sanctioned posts without following the procedure for appointment, such as, issuing of the advertisement, observance of the rules of reservation etc. Moreover, many such appointment letters were issued from the level of the Chief Engineer, Mechanical Division and though the subject mentioned in such letters were different but they have been treated to be appointment letters. Consequently, the Government for the aforesaid reasons terminated the services of the petitioners and also directed for Initiation of a criminal proceedings against erring officers. This letter was issued by the Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar. Consequent to that letter the appointments of altogether 611 employees were terminated with effect from 29.8.1998. Against this termination order, the petitioners have filed these writs for a direction to quash that annexure. It appears that prior to filing of these writs an another writ had been filed in this High Court being CWJC No. 2566 of 1998 (R), which was disposed of by order dated 27.7.1999 (Annexure II). That writ was to regularise the services of the petitioners of that writ, but it appears that a stay was also granted in that writ, but during the pendency of that writ the termination occurred, consequently that writ for regularization became infructuous. Therefore, the Court gave a liberty to the petitioners of that writ to challenge the termination order and also the interim order passed in that case stood vacated. Meaning thereby that the termination order was not challenged in that writ and under the liberty, the petitioners have filed this writ. This impugned order has been challenged mainly on the grounds that no individual notice of termination or show cause or any retrenchment order was served upon the petitioners and thus, the rules of natural justice have not been followed and the compliance of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act has not been made and for release the salary which has been withheld by the respondents even for the period for which they worked. In substance the ground is that the valid procedure, for removal/ retrenchment has not been followed. Short facts of the case are that in the year 1988 a new mechanical circles/ Division/Sub -Division for extension and unification of mechanical organization of the Road Construction Department was created. In the year 1984 there was a Government circular that no appointment under work charge establishment should be made and those work charge employees appointed till 1984 were absorbed. It was incumbent upon the Superintending Engineer (Medical Circle) to maintain and operate those equipments and perform the time bound duty assigned to them with regard to the Road construction through machines. They have no option except to take work from the persons on daily wages as there was no staff and the appointment of regular staff had been stopped. According to the petitioners, the persons who were appointed in the year 1963 most of them either retired or died and consequently 5000 regular posts of Field Staff are vacant. Annexure 5 is a chart mentioning the letters of appointment and extension letters, which were made with effect from 20.1.1995. In the appointment letter itself, it was stated that the appointment was purely provisional and temporary and will be terminated at any time. It is further stated that by Annexure 6, the appointment was sought to be regularized Annexure 6 is a general notice by which the petitioners so appointed were directed to submit their applications for regularization on their services to their controlling officer and according to the petitioners thereafter their services were regularized as it appears from the service book. Then it is alleged that due to differences between Superintending Engineers these problem arose and the services of the petitioners were terminated. According to the petitioners mere service of notice in general as it has not been served individual does not serve the principle of natural justice and hence the prayer has been made to quash the impugned order dated 29.8.1998.
(3.) RESPONDENTS appeared and filed counter affidavit. The cake of the respondents is that the notice for cancellation of the appointment was issued jointly, when a question was asked from them whether individually notices were served, answer was that no individual notice was served before terminating the services of the petitioners. The cancellation order was defended on the ground of Annexure A, It was also averred by the respondents in paragraph - 8 that although no such individual order of termination issued but all such appointed persons were retrenched as the same had been declared as illegal by the department. After retrenchment no such persons are doing their duties, as such, the question of making their attendance does not arise. It was also submitted that the appointment and regularization against the sanctioned vacancy has not been taken up by the department so far.;