R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties. As both the cases are similar they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) THE petitioners have challenged the order of termination of their services issued on 24.4.1997, Annexure -4 series. The petitioners case is that they filed writ petition being CWJC No. 1049 of 1991 (R), for a direction to regularize their services and to give them parity in the pay scales with the Assistant Teachers of the Schools and for quashing the advertisement made by the respondents for appointment of teachers. On 8.5.1991, an order of status quo was passed. On 16.8.1991 the said application was dismissed upon the prayer for adjournment being refused. However, the same was restored. Taking advantage of dismissal of the writ petition, the respondents terminated the services of the petitioners against which they filed another writ petition being CWJC No. 1869 of 1991 (R). Both these writ petitions were heard and disposed of by a common, Judgment dated 26.1.1994. As there was a dispute whether the petitioners were appointment or not, this Court appointed a Conciliation Officer, who submitted a report that the petitioners have been appointed as Teachers on honorarium basis and they were working from 1986, 87 and 1988 in different schools, managed and sponsored by the Bihar State Electricity Board. This Court quashed the notice/order of their termination dated 20.8.1991 and allowed CWJC No. 1869 of 1991 (R). However CWJC No. 1049 of 1991 (R) was allowed in part directing the respondents -Board to pay the scale of pay to them at the rate which was being paid to the regular teachers of the schools with effect from the date of the order. This Court refused to grant any relief for regularization/absorption. However, the Board was directed to advertise the vacant post of the teachers and make appointments in accordance with law. The Board was further directed to consider the cases of the petitioners if they apply pursuant to the advertisement and found eligible taking into consideration their past work. The respondents -Board challenged the said judgment before the Hon ble Supreme Court but on 3.1.1995 the Special Leave Petition was dismissed. On 15.2.1995, the respondents pursuant to the orders passed in CWCJ No. 1869 of 1991 (R) ordered for payment of salary with effect from 26.4.1994 i.e. the date of the judgment of this Court to be calculated on the basis of the basic pay scale along with dearness allowance.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was no bar in appointing them as assistant teachers on honorarium if they were related to the employees of the Board, that if there was financial crisis and overstaffing, there was no reason to make advertisement for appointment of assistant teachers; that the termination order is bad as the notice pay was not paid equivalent to the regular teachers, that as the respondents did not succeed in the said cases, they acted in biased manner in terminating the services of the petitioners.;