M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) IN the instant, writ petition the petitioners seek an appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 30.4.2004 issued by the respondents by which the services of the petitioners have been dispensed with immediate, effect on payment of three months salary.
(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a=narrow compass : Pursuant to the direction issued by the Patna High Court, in CWJC no. 6173/92 to the State of Bihar and its authorities to perform their statutory duty in the. matter of appointment of safety officers in the different factories within the State of Bihar, the respon - dent - HEC. invited applications in 1993 for appointment of safety officers. After complying all the procedures the petitioners were appointed as safety of - ficers on 29.12.93 for six months which period was extended from time to time. Though the petitioners were appointed on regular basis but were being paid consolidated pay. In 1997 the petitioners were stopped from working as safety officers. Consequently the petitioners filed CWJC No. 3427/98 (R) for a direction to the respondents to reinstate them on their original posts with full back wages and other conse - quential benefits. The respondents took a stand in the counter affidavit that the appointment of the petitioners was purely temporary on ad hoc basis and, therefore, they1 had no right to continue in service and the Corporation had full right to ter - minate the services of the petitioners after expiry of extended period. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of on 26.10.99 by a Bench, of this Court holding -that the appointment of the petitioners was not on ad -hoc basis, rather, they were appointed as regular employees of the Corporation. In that view of the matter this Court held that the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioners to work as safety officers is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. The respondents -Corporation chal - lenged the said judgment and order by filing LPA No. 508/99. The said appeal was dis - missed on 16.7.2002 by a Division Bench affirming the finding of the learned Single Judge that the petitioners were appointed after following all the procedures of regular appointment and their services cannot be terminated on the .ground that the appoint - ment was ad -hoc. The respondents -Corpo - ration then moved the Supreme Court by filing,SU? No. 21902/2002 which was dis - missed on 13.12.2003. The respondents - Corporation also filed a review petition being Civil Review no. 7/2003 before the Division Bench for reviewing the judgment passed in1 LPA no. 508/99 and the said review peti - tion was dismissed on 4.3.2003.
(3.) SINCE the judgment was not com - plied with, the petitioners filed a contempt case being Contempt [Civil] No. 1032/2002 and it was only thereafter the respondent produced before the Contempt Court an office order dated 1 lth March, 2003 reinstat - ing the. petitioners in service. The said contempt petition was accordingly dropped on 12.3.2003. Even after reinstatement the petitioners were not treated as regular employees which culminated into a second contempt filed by the petitioners being Con - tempt [Civill No. 345/2003. In the said contempt case the respondents -Corporation appeared and - submitted that the petitioners will be treated as regular employees, and will get regular pay scale, on the basis of that submission the contempt case was dropped on 26.9.2003.;