Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the orders as contained in Annexure 8, 9, 9/1 and 9/2 whereby and whereunder the petitioners services were terminated and for issuance of an appropriate writ restraining the respon dents from removing the petitioners from services except in accordance with law. 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass, 3. The petitioners were appointed on various dates as mentioned in the writ petition. The relevant paragraphs of the writ petition are hereunder :- Paragraph 4.- "petitioner, Gopal Prasad was appointed as a constable in the Excise Department on 5-1-1979 by the Excise Superintendent, monghyr, and he joined his post on 6-1-1979, and he worked on the said post till April, 1979 and thereafter, his service was discontinued and he again worked as an Excise Constable from the month -of may, 1979 to November, 1979. On 2-2-1989 he was again appointed as on Excise Constable by the Excise Superintendent, Monghyr, and since then he was continuously working on the said port till 29-3-1982 when he was removed from the service. " Paragraph 5.- "the petitioner, Chhabila Paswan was appointed as excise Constable by the Excise Superintendent, Monghyr, on 13-3-1974 and since then he was working on the said post till he was removed from the service. " Paragraph 6.- "the petitioner Jamoluddin Khan was appointed as an excise Constable in June, 1977 by the Excise Superintendent, Saran, chapra, and he worked as such till 30-2-1979 and on 1-3-1979 he was appointed as night guard in the Excise Department and was posted at Khagaria. On 28-4-1980 he was appointed as Excise constable by the Excise Superintendent, Monghyr and since then he was working on the said post continuously till his removal from the service on 27-3-1982. " Paragraph 1.- "the petitioner, Mehdi Hassan was appointed as Excise constable by the Excise Superintendent, Monghyr on 12-11-1980 and joined his post on 15-11-1980 and since then he was continuously working on the said post till he was removed from the service on 27-3-1982. " 4. The petitioners have asserted that the respondents have always found their work to be satisfactory and as such their services were approved by the collector for making permanent appointment and their names were also entered in the register of candidates for permanent appointment in the post of Excise constables. " 4. The petitioners have asserted that the respondents have always found their work to be satisfactory and as such their services were approved by the collector for making permanent appointment and their names were also entered in the register of candidates for permanent appointment in the post of Excise constables. By a letter dated 16-10-1981 the Excise Superintendent reported to the excise Commissioner that the petitioners names have been entered in the regis ter for permanent appointment in the post of Excise Constables. The said report is contained in Annexure 5 to the writ petition. 5. The petitioners have further asserted that in the month of November, 1980 appointments were made on the post of Excise Constable in different districts but no appointment was made in the district of Monghyre and the aforemen tioned appointment letters were issued by memo No.8088, dated 26-11-1981 under the signature of Excise Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna. The said letter dated 26-11-1981 is contained in Annexure 6 to the writ petition. 6. The petitioners have alleged that by the said letter the Excise commissioner directed the Excise Superintendent to terminate the services of the petitioners. He also by his letter, dated 12-3-1982 asked the Excise Superinten dent to terminate the services of the petitioners along with others, who were appointed as Excise Constable and further directed the said Excise Superinten dent to inform him as to under what circumstances their names were entered in the list of the candidates to be permanently appointed as Excise Coastables. A copy of the said letter dated 12-3-1982 is contained in Annexure 7 to the writ petition. 7. Pursuant to and in furtherance of the aforementioned direction the services of the petitioners were directed to be terminated by the Excise Superin-tendent as contained in his memo No.2115 (5), dated 26-3-1982 (Annexure 8 ). Thereafter the respondents No.5, 6 and 7 issued individual letters of termination of services as contained in Annexure 9 to 9/2 to the writ petition. 8. The petitioners have also filed a supplementary affidavit. In the said supplementary affidavit it has been contended that the Excise Constables are appointed from the panel prepared by the Department. By a letter dated 8-4-1980 the Excise Commissioner asked the Excise Superintendent, Munger to include the names of such constables in the panel, who had been working for more than one year. In the said supplementary affidavit it has been contended that the Excise Constables are appointed from the panel prepared by the Department. By a letter dated 8-4-1980 the Excise Commissioner asked the Excise Superintendent, Munger to include the names of such constables in the panel, who had been working for more than one year. A reminder to the said letter was also sent by a letter dated 16-5-1980. 9. The petitioners have further asserted that pursuant to the aforemen tioned directions, the respondent No.4 recommended the names of the petitioners to the Collector Munger by his letter dated 14-7-1981 and the Collector of the munger district approved the aforementioned recommendation. 10. It has further been asserted that the Excise Commissioner by his letter dated 13-8-1983 requested the Excise Superintendent to send the names of such persons, who has been working as Excise Constables against the casual vacancies and pursuant there to the Excise Superintendent in his letter dated 7-9-1983 sent the names of the eligible candidates including those of the petitioners. The petitioners have further stated that other persons whose names find place in paragraph 5 of the said supplementary alfidavit had also been working like the petitioners ; but their services were not terminated by the impugned order dated 26-3-1982. 11. The petitioners have further contended that the petitioner No.3, chhabilla Paswan had been working continuously from 13-4-1974 as Excise constable ; whereas the other persons had joined the services at a letter date. 12. In this case a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents has been filed. In the said counter affidavit it has has been contended that by two letters dated 28-5-1981 and 22-6-1981, the Superintendent of Excise, Munger was directed by the Commissioner of Excise not to make fresh appointment in future without seeking prior permission of Excise Commissioner Bihar, Patna. 13. It has further been asserted in the said counter affidavit that the government of Bihar also by a letter dated 13-6-1981 directed that any appoint-made after 13-6-1980 against the vacancies created under the said letter was not to be treated as valid one and it was further directed that the Excise Constables, who are appointed during the period of prohibition shall be absorbed against the vacancies after 27-1-1981 in view of the relaxation in the prohibition policy. 14. 14. It has also been contended by the respondents that the Excise Superin tendent had sent the names of the petitioners in violation of the directives of the State Government. 15. It has further been alleged that the Commissioner of Excise by a letter dated 19-1-1982 again directed the Excise Superintendent, Munger not to make any fresh appointment. By another letter dated 20th March, 1982 the commissioner of Excise again directed not to make any fresh appointment after 27-1-1982. 16. It has been asserted in the counter affidavit that the Superintendent of excise thereafter requested the Collector, Monghyer to cancel the enrolment of the petitioner by his note dated 25-2-1982, which was accepted by the Collector, munger. 17. In the said counter affidavit the respondents in relation to the cases of each of the petitioner have stated as follows:- "in reply to the statement contained in paragraph 4 of the writ petition it is stated that under Memo No.1576 (6), dated 6-1-79 and 1391, dated 2-2-1980 as contained in Annexures 1 and 1/a of the writ petition the petitioner Gopal Prasad was appointed as an outsider against temporary vacancies by the Superintendent, Monghyr, which clearly show that his appointment was purely temporary liable to be terminated at any time without prior notice which never conferred any right on the petitioner Gopal Prasad to continue on the post. " "in reply to the statement contains in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, it is stated that it is never a fact that the petitioner Chhabila Paswan continued to hold the post of Excise Constable from 13-3-1974 upto the date when he was removed. His services were taken against temporary vacancies as an outsider subject to termination of his service without prior notice. His services were discontinued and different points of times. " "in reply to the statement contained in paragraph 6 of the writ petition, it is stated that he was employed as night guard in the department on 1-3-1979 at Khagaria. It will appear from Annexure 2 of the writ petition that this petitioner was employed against the vacancy occurred on account of promotion of Sri Yadunandan Prasad Yadav, excise Constable to the post of opperating Assistant Sub-Inspector of excise. The order contained in Annexure 2 recites that the appoint-o ment is purely temporary which can be terminated without previous notice. It will appear from Annexure 2 of the writ petition that this petitioner was employed against the vacancy occurred on account of promotion of Sri Yadunandan Prasad Yadav, excise Constable to the post of opperating Assistant Sub-Inspector of excise. The order contained in Annexure 2 recites that the appoint-o ment is purely temporary which can be terminated without previous notice. " "in reply to the statement contained in paragraph 7 of the writ petition, it is stated that the order contained in Annexure 3 of the writ petition that the appointment of the petitioner Mehdi Hussain was purely temporary which shall be terminated any time without previous notice when any senior candidate shall be available for appointment to that post. Under the aforementioned contract of appointment this petitioner cannot claim to hold the post permanently. " 18. The respondents have, therefore, contended that the appointment of the petitioners having been made in violation of the aforementioned directions of the State of Bihar and/or the Commissioner of Excise, their services have rightly been terminated. 19. Mr. Vishwanath Prasad Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the services as the petitioners are governed by Rules 4 and 5 of the rules for the Recruitment of Excise Constables wich reads as folio ws :- Rule 4.-"a list of approved candidates who fulfill the conditions of Rule 2 and are prepared to officiate in temporary vacancies shall be maintained by each Excise Superintendent in Form 159-B and he shall make officiating appointments from time to time as required from among the candidates borne on that list having regard to seniority as well as merit. The names of such candidates shall be struck off the list in the event of serious misconduct or if they attain the age-limit laid down in rules 2 and 3 without obtaining permanent appointment. The number of names to be kept on the list shall be fixed by the Collector. It shall ordinarily be about one-fifth the number of constable in the district. In filling vacancies in the list of approved candidate a particular regard be given to the principles laid down in Government Order 1908-A dated the 13th November, 1953 i. e. he should aim at proportional representation for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in his district subject to the essential requirement of efficiency. In filling vacancies in the list of approved candidate a particular regard be given to the principles laid down in Government Order 1908-A dated the 13th November, 1953 i. e. he should aim at proportional representation for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in his district subject to the essential requirement of efficiency. " Rule 5.-"in making permanent appointment the Collector will make his selection from candidates whose names have and been on the waiting list and who have previously officiated, should they not found unsuitable. " 20. From the statements made in paragraphs 4 to 7 to the writ petition as also paragraphs 17 to 20 of the counter affidavit, as mentioned hereinbefore, it is evident that the petitioners were appointed prior to the order imposing ban in appointment was issued. The respondents in the counter affidavit have not denied that the petitioners had worked continuously for a period of more than one year. The respondents have further not traversed the statements made in the supplementary affidavit as referred to hereinbefore, and as such it must be accepted that some persons, who are similarly situated have been retained in service. It must also be accepted as correct that the petitioner No.3 was appointed earlier to the persons whose names figured in paragraph 5 of the said supple mentary affidavit i. e. Murari Ram, Snehi Prasad, Surendra Kumar Gupta, bhuneshwar Thakur, Nizam Sah and Deepak Kumar Das. 21. It is now well settled by various decisions of the Supreme Court that the State is bound by its policy decisions. 22. In the instant case, the matter relating to the appointment of Excise constables are governed by the statutory rules. The State of Bihar, therefore, having laid down its policy decision by -framing a statutory rule, which has got the force of law by laying down the procedure as to how and in what manner an excise Constable would be appointed, it cannot resile from the said position. 23. There cannot be any doubt that the petitioners were appointed on purely temporary basis ; but it cannot be disputed that permanent vacancies are to be filled up from amongst the employees whose names figured in the panel for appointment and the panel is to be prepared from amongst the person ; who have been working temporarily. 23. There cannot be any doubt that the petitioners were appointed on purely temporary basis ; but it cannot be disputed that permanent vacancies are to be filled up from amongst the employees whose names figured in the panel for appointment and the panel is to be prepared from amongst the person ; who have been working temporarily. In this view of the matter the respondents could not have justifiably terminated the services of the petitioners. 24. Further from Annexure 8 to the writ petition it appears that although the said letter was issued on 26th March, 1982, the petitioners services were terminated with effect from 1-3-1982. 25. It is now well known that service of a person cannot be terminated with retrospective effect. Reference in this connection may be made to 1983 BBCJ 439 -Abdul Khair khan V/s. State of Bihar and another. 26. It is also now well setteled that the State is bound by its own policy decision and any deviation or departure therefrom is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Reference in this connection may be made to 1976 Volume 1 SCC 817-State of Mysore and another V/s. H. Srinivasamurthy. 27. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the State of Bihar was bound to follow the recruitment policy as contained in Rules 4 and 5, as mentioned hereinbefore. 28. Further, the Supreme Court in Dhirendra Chamoli and another V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1986 Volume 1 SCC 637 held as follows :- "the fact that these employees accepted employment with full knowledge that they will be paid only daily wages and they will not get the same salary and conditions of service as other Class IV employees, cannot provide an escape to the Central Government to avoid the mandate of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. This article declares that there shall be equality before law and equal protection of the law and implicit in it is the further principle that there must be equal pay for work of equal value. These employees who are in the service of the different Nehru Yuvak kendras in the country and who are admittedly performing the same duties as Class IV employees, must, therefore, get the same salary and conditions of service as Class IV employees. It makes no difference whether they are appointed in sanctioned posts or not. These employees who are in the service of the different Nehru Yuvak kendras in the country and who are admittedly performing the same duties as Class IV employees, must, therefore, get the same salary and conditions of service as Class IV employees. It makes no difference whether they are appointed in sanctioned posts or not. So long as they are performing the same duties, they must receive the same salary and conditions of service as Class IV employees. " 29. In the said decision the Supreme Court directed the Central government in the following terms":- "we, therefore, allow the writ petitions and make the rule absolute and directed the Central Government to accord to these persons who are employed by the Nehru Yuvak Kendras and who are concedly performing the same duties as Class IV employees, the same salary and conditions of service as are being received by Class IV employees, except regularisation which cannot be done since there are no sanctioned posts. But we hope and trust that posts will be sanctioned by the Central Government in the different Nehru Yuvak kendras, so that these persons can be regularised. It is not at all desirable that any management and particularly the Central Gavernment should continue to employ persons on casual basis in organisations which have been in existence for over 12 years. The salary and allowances of Class IV employees shall be given to these persons employed in Nehrn Yuvak Kendras with effect from the date when they were respectively employed. " 30. The Supreme Court again in Surinder Singh and another V/s. Engineer-in-Chief, C. P. W. D. and others, (1986 Volume 1 SCC 639) followed the decision in Dhirendra Chamolis case. In the said decision it has been held as follows :- "the Central Government like all organs of the State is committed to the directive Principles of State Policy and Article 39 enshrines the principle of equal pay for equal work In Randhir Singh V/s. Union of india, this court has occasion to explain the observations in kishori Mohan Lal Bakshi V/s. Union of India, and to point out how the principle of equal pay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine and how it is a vital and vigorous doctrine accepted throught the world, particularly by all socialist countries. For the benefit of those that do not seem to be aware of it, we may point out that the decision in Randhir Singh case has been followed in any number of cases by this Court and has been affirmed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in D. S. Nakara V/s. Union of India. The Central Government, the State Governments and likewise, all public sector undertakings expected to function like model and enlightened employers and arguments such as those which were advanced before us that the principle of equal pay for equal work is an abstract doctrine which cannot be enforced in a court of law should ill come from the mouths of the State and State undertakings. " 31. The Supreme Court thereafter in Inder Pal Yadav V/s. Union of India, 1985 PLJR (SC) 36 held as follows :- "to avoid violation of Articles 14, the scientific and equitable way of implementing the Scheme is for the Railway administration to prepare a list of project casual labour with reference to each division of each railway and then start absorbing those with the longest service. If in the process any adjustments are necessary the same must be done. In giving this direction, we are considerably influenced by the statutory recognisation of a principle well known in Industrial juris prudence that the men with the longest service shall have priority over those who have joined later on. In other words, the principle of last come first go or to reverse it first come last go as enunciated in Sec.25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been accepted. We direct accordingly. " 32. The said law has again been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Daily rated Casual Labour Employed under P. and T. Department V/s. Union of India and others, AIR 1987 SC 2342 in the following terms : - "it is for this reason it is being repeatedly observed by those who are in charge of economic affairs of the countries in different parts of the world that as far as possible security of work should be assured to the employees so that they may contribute to maximisation of production. It is again for this reason that managements and the governmental agencies in particular should not allow the workers to remain as casual labourers or temporary employees for an unreasonably long period of time. It is again for this reason that managements and the governmental agencies in particular should not allow the workers to remain as casual labourers or temporary employees for an unreasonably long period of time. Where is any justification to keep persons as casual labourers for years as is being done in the Postail and telegraphs Department Is it for paying the lower wages Then it amounts to exploitation of labour. Is it because you do not know that there is enough work for the workers It cannot be so because there is so much of development to be carried out in the communi cations department that you need more workers. The employees belonging to skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled classes can be shifted from one department to another even if there is no work to be done in a given place. Administrators should realise that if any worker remains idle on any day, the country loses the wealth that he would have produced during that day. Our wage structure is such that a worker is always paid less than what he produces. So why allow people to remain idle Any way they have got to be fed and clothed. Therefore, why dont we provide them with work There are several types of work such as road making, railway construction, house building, irrigation projects, communications etc. which have to be undertaken on a large scale. Development in these types of activities (even though they do not involve much foreign exchange)is not keeping page with the needs of society. We are saying all this only to make the people understand the need for better management of power (which is a decalaring asset) the non-utilisation of which leads to the inevitable loss of valuable human resources. Let us remember-the slogan : "produce or Perish". It is not an empty slogan. It is against this background that we say that non-regularisatibn of "temporary employees or casual labour for a long period is not a wise policy. " 33. In view of the aforementioned authoritative pronouncements of the supreme Court, the respondents are directed to absorb the petitioners as and when their occur vacancies in the sanctioned posts in terms of the Rules 4 and 5 as mentioned hereinbefore. 34. " 33. In view of the aforementioned authoritative pronouncements of the supreme Court, the respondents are directed to absorb the petitioners as and when their occur vacancies in the sanctioned posts in terms of the Rules 4 and 5 as mentioned hereinbefore. 34. However, in view of the fact that the petitioners were appointed much prior to the imposition of ban, there does not appear to be justifiable reason for terminating the services of the petitioners. Further, as noticed hereinbefore, the respondents have not denied that persons who are similarly situated are still retained in service. The respondents have also not denied that the said persons are atleast junior to the petitioner No.3. 35. In Manager Government Branch Press and another V. D. B. Nillappa 1979 BBCJ (SC) 11 : AIR 1979 SC 429 , the Supreme Court clearly held that even in the case of temporary employee the services of the senior cannot be retrenched while the employees junior to him are retained in service. 36. As seen hereinbefore, various persons whose names appeared in paragraph 5 of the supplementary affidavit, who are similarly situated have been retained in service. In this view of the matter also the petitioners cannot be discriminated. 37. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders as contained in Annexure 8, 9, 9/1 and 9/2 are hereby quashed. The respondent are directed to absorb the petitioner if and when permanent vacancies occur in the sanctioned posts. However, it is made clear that the petitioners shall not be entitled to any salary for the period they have not acctually worked. 38. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will, however, be no order as to costs. Petition allowed