Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) Both these aforesaid writ applications have been heard together since the facts delineated and disclosed therein and the relief sought for are more or less similar, with the consent of the respective counsels, the matters have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. W.P. (S) No. 4811 of 2010
(2.) The captioned writ application has been filed, praying, inter alia, for issuance of an appropriate writ/direction for quashing the order dated 2.1.2010 (Annexure-5), passed by the Dy. Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Rural Development Authority, Hazaribagh, whereby the services of the petitioners have been terminated.
(3.) Sans details, the facts as disclosed and delineated in the writ application are that the petitioner no. 1 was appointed on 15.12.1987 by the order of the Dy. Commissioner, Hazaribagh and the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were appointed on 28.01.1985 by the approval of the competent authority. It has been averred in the writ application that after appointment, the petitioners were posted at different blocks and they are performing their duties to their best of ability and there was no complaint against them. It has been further averred that the petitioners were getting their salary for the working period, but when the petitioners were not paid their salary, the petitioner no. 1 Anita Kumari Prasad moved before this Court in W.P. (S) No. 6763 of 2007 and this Court passed the order on 30.07.2008 for payment of salary. The entire salary of the petitioner no. 1 and others were paid in view of the order passed by this Court. Again the salary of the petitioners was withheld for the period from August, 2008 till date and the petitioners moved this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 2926 of 2009 on 11.09.2009 this Court passed the following order : If the petitioners make application to the Respondent No. 2 for payment of their salary, Respondent No. 2 will look into the matter and after conducting such enquiry, as he may deem fit, will pass a reasoned order within six weeks of the date on which he received the application along with certified copy of the order about the entitlement of petitioners in regard to their salary. Thereafter, the petitioners, in compliance of the direction of this Court, filed representations along with the order of this Court dated 11.09.2009 on 30.10.2009 before the Dy. Commissioner, Hazaribagh. Thereafter, Dy. Commissioner, Hazaribagh, without considering the spirit of the order dated 11.09.2009, passed in W.P. (S) No. 2926 of 2009, the representation filed by the petitioners and without deciding as to whether the petitioners are entitled to get their salary or not, as well as without giving any opportunity of being heard and in violation of the principles of natural justice, issued the order of termination dated 02.01.2010 (Annexure-5). The Dy. Commissioner without considering the fact that the petitioners are working since long and their appointment is legal as it has been done by the competent authority, has passed the impugned order. Other similarly situated persons, namely, Indu Kumari, Maya Sahu, Renu etc. who were appointed with petitioners and working in other districts are still working and they are getting their salary and hence the action of the respondents is discriminatory and on this score alone the impugned order is fit to be set aside. The petitioners have filed I.A. No. 1373 of 2010, which was heard on 12.08.2010 by this Court, wherein order has been passed that the prayer made in W.P. (S) No. 2926 of 2009 is for payment of salary for the working period and the prayer was also to amend in the prayer portion as the impugned order relates to termination of service, so the nature of prayer will be changed and hence, the petitioners were directed to file separate writ petition challenging the termination. Earlier also, the petitioner no. 1 Anita Kumari Prasad had filed W.P. (S) No. 6763 of 2007, which was disposed of on 30.07.2008, wherein, counter affidavit has been filed, mentioning, therein, that the fund was not available and they demanded the fund and payment was made. At, no point of time, the respondents have stated that the petitioners have not performed their duty diligently. Vide order dated 20.02.2009, the Dy. Commissioner, Hazaribagh wrote letter to the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi for allotment of fund and on 09.09.2008, D.D.C. Hazaribagh also wrote to the Government and vide letter dated 29.4.07, the Dy. Development Commissioner, Hazaribagh wrote to the Govt. that 8 Sewikas including the petitioners are appointed on vacant and sanctioned posts after following all procedures and norms, which is prescribed under the law and they are the regular employees, whose services have been confirmed and they are performing their duties and, therefore, they are entitled to get the salary. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, wherein, it has been, inter alia, stated that other similarly situated Sevikas are getting their salary. Left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, the petitioners have been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances.;