ORDER This order shall also govern the disposal of the connected 24 other petitions particularised as – (i) M.P. No. 150/93 (Shashikant v. Apex Bank) (2) M.P. No. 193/93 (Omprakash v. M.D M.P. Rajya Sahakari) (3) M.P. No. 194/93 (Subhash v. M.D. M.P. Rajya Sahakari) (4) M.P. No. 195/93 (Dayashankar v. -do-) (5) M.P. No. 196/93 (Sudamaprasad v. -do-) (6) M.P. No. 197/93 (Premchand v. -do-) (7) M.P. No. 270/93 (Surendra v. -do-) (8) M.P. No. 271/93 (Deepak v. -do-) (9) M.P. No. 272/93 (Vijaysingh v. -do-) (10) M.P. No. 273/93 (Smt. Ranjana v. -do-) (11) M.P. No. 274/93 (Prahlad v. -do-) (12) M.P. No. 488/93 (Ramesh v. -do-) (13) M.P. No. 489/93 (Sunderlal v. -do-) (14) M.P. No. 490/93 (Mahesh v. -do-) (15) M.P. No. 501/93 (Jagdish v. -do-) (16) M.P. No. 751/93 (Panna v. -do-) (17) M.P. No. 788/93 (Ramcharan v. -do-) (18) M.P. No. 812/93 (Shrikrishna v. -do-) (19) M.P. No. 815/93 (Mohanlal v. -do-) (20) M.P. No. 860/93 (Ramjilal v. -do-) (21) M.P. No. 892/93 (Shallesh v. -do-) (22) M.P. No. 893/93 (Ashok v. -do-) (23) M.P. No. 1130/93 (Sharad v. -do-) (24) M.P. No. 2114/93 (Smt. Sushila v. -do-) 2. Briefly stated the facts as projected in all these petitions are that the petitioner in M.P. No. 149193 was appointed as sub-engineer, petitioner in M.P. No. 270/93 was appointed as sub-engineer, petitioner in M:P. No. 1130/93 is working as executive engineer, petitioner in M.P. No. 273/93 was appointed as Junior Assistant, petitioner in M.P. No. 892/93 was appointed as sub-engineer, petitioner in M.P. No. 2114/93 was appointed as P.T. Sweeper, petitioner in M.P. No. 488/93 was appointed as peon and petitioners in M.P. No. 860/93, 751/93, 150/93, 193/93, 196/93, 489193 and 194/93 were appointed as drivers whereas the petitioners in remaining petitions were appointed as Chowkidars by Respondent No.1 to work under the control of Respondent No.3 (Chief Project Manager NCDC III Storage Project Bhopal). 3. The petitioners entered the service as daily wagers but their engagement was continued for years. Pursuant to the demand of the employees of the NCDC (National Co-operative Development Corporation, project) the employees were recommended to be absorbed in the regular jobs of the same cadre in the District Co-operative Central Banks at various places. The State Government (Respondent No.4) sanctioned absorption in the District Co-operative Central Banks. Pursuant to the demand of the employees of the NCDC (National Co-operative Development Corporation, project) the employees were recommended to be absorbed in the regular jobs of the same cadre in the District Co-operative Central Banks at various places. The State Government (Respondent No.4) sanctioned absorption in the District Co-operative Central Banks. Those directed to be absorbed could not take benefit of the order of absorption because they were not relieved in time and the orders were treated as revoked after expiry of 15-days on failure to join the duty as directed. The petitioners feared discontinuance of the service and felt aggrieved by inadequacy of payment. They, therefore, filed separate petitions seeking direction prohibiting discontinuance from service and granting regularisation and proper pay on the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work. 4. The Division Bench of this Court passed interim order restraining the respondents from removing the petitioners from service. 5. The respondents No.1 and 3 have filed the return. The petitioner filed a rejoinder. On application the respondent No.5 (National Co-operative Development Corporation) was added as Respondent No.5. The Respondent No.5 also filed the return. 6. On request of the counsel for the parties these petitioners are finally heard. 7. The counsel for the petitioners submitted as under a) The work of the project is not over as is clear from the documents placed on record through I.A. No. 5296/94. The Respondent No. 1 has invited tenders for work at various places and as such, the petitioners cannot be discontinued from service on the ground of cessation of the work or abolition of post. b) The petitioners were retained in service for the period ranging between 6 and 14 years and after such a long period, it was unjust as well as inhuman to discontinue them from service. At this stage, even the age factor would disentitle the petitioners from seeking other appropriate jobs. c) The respondents were under legal obligation to retain the petitioners, regularise their services and pay proper salary as is admissible in respect of the work extracted from the petitioners. d) The respondent No.1 applied the untenable rule of 'pick and choose' and absorbed the junior ones and left the senior ones like the petitioners in the lurch. c) The respondents were under legal obligation to retain the petitioners, regularise their services and pay proper salary as is admissible in respect of the work extracted from the petitioners. d) The respondent No.1 applied the untenable rule of 'pick and choose' and absorbed the junior ones and left the senior ones like the petitioners in the lurch. The respondent No. 1 is, therefore, under legal obligation to reconsider the cases of all persons similarly situate and pass appropriate orders of absorporation according to their respective seniority and to make proper payment including the arrears according to individual seniority. 8. The counsel for the respondents No.1 and 3 submitted that respondent No.1 was simply an executing agency and the appointment was only for a limited period far the duration of the project on fixed rate. He also submitted that the project has been closed and as such, the petitioners acquired no legal right for obtaining the directions as noted above. The counsel also filed the copy of the order passed in M.P. No. 1781/93 (Annexure-A) through I.A.No. 3837/94 seeking disposal of this petition in terms of directions as contained in the aforesaid order dated 2.5.94. 9. The counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that the respondent No. 1 is under no obligation to become liable to the reliefs claimed by the petitioners. 10. In return, the oppugnation rests on the linchpin that the petitioners were engaged to Work in a scheme sponsored and settled by NCDC in terms of section 3 of the NCD Corporation Act, 1962 (No. 26 of 1962). NCDC was constituted by Central Government. The object of the scheme it is urged, was to construct rural godowns on financial aid from world Bank. Cessation of work, as a result of closure of project ipso facto yields 'ouster' of those engaged for purpose and creates situation of stoppage of further employment. 11. Before entering into other aspects, it is appropriate to deal with the contention or disposal of these petitions on the basis of directions issued in M.P.No. 1781/93. It is directed therein as under: - "However these employees have been working under the project of NCDC and as and when other project is taken over by this corporation, then the services of these petitioners should be engaged on a priority basis as against the fresh recruitment as these petitioners are old hand of this Corporation. It is directed therein as under: - "However these employees have been working under the project of NCDC and as and when other project is taken over by this corporation, then the services of these petitioners should be engaged on a priority basis as against the fresh recruitment as these petitioners are old hand of this Corporation. It has also been brought to my notice that the respondents No.4 and 5 i.e. Cooperative societies and the State Government have issued necessary instructions for absorption of these persons as and when vacancies arise in the District Cooperative Society. The respondents shall keep those directions in view." In my view the cases on hand do not permit their disposel on the basis of the aforesaid order because of two distinguishing "features" One. The services are not yet terminated and some of these petitioners were in fact ordered to be transferred to other places. Two The services of the petitioners of the aforesaid petition were terminated on payment of compensation. Such is not the case here. Hence, the aforesaid order does not conclude the matter. 12. State owned enterprises, called the public sector in our country, have been built. About 231 public Sectors are run by Union Government and 636 by State Government. Unfortunately these are criticised as black-holes, money guzzlers and extractors of exhorbitant price for doctrinaire socialism. Criticism needs to be incinerated. 13. In AIR 1986 Supreme Court 180 (Olga Tellis and others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others), it is held that right of 'livelihood' is implicity covered under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In AIR 1991 Supreme Court 101 (Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and others), Constitutional Bench held that regulation to remove on notice simpliciter was unconstitutional. The Division Bench of this Court held in LP A No. 40/86 (The Mandsaur District Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank, Mandsaur v. Vijaykumar and others) on 25.7.94 that -- "Law clearly forbids the pattern of "in" today and "out" tomorrow. Now persons in public employment have the benefit of Constitutional protection." 14. After seven and forty years of independence we are still plagued by basic problems of proverty, unemployment and foreign exchange trade implication. Problems stubbornly refuse to depart. Now persons in public employment have the benefit of Constitutional protection." 14. After seven and forty years of independence we are still plagued by basic problems of proverty, unemployment and foreign exchange trade implication. Problems stubbornly refuse to depart. In matter of retention and regularisation the plea always is – "Don't remove him and don't remove me But remove that man behind that tree." Such echo is heard because ouster from job, even when less dignified and appropriate, has the potential of killing the oustee. This is why "right to life" is considered to include in its scope and sweep' 'right to livelihood." 15. In AIR 1990 SC 1670 (Dr. V.L. Chandra and others v. All India Institute of Medical Science and others) it is emphasised that alternative avenues must be made available even on closure of project and in AIR 1993 Supreme Court 1388 (Gurmail Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others), it is pointed out that even on transfer of unit re-employment with benefit of continuity of service may be considered. The thrust vividly visible, is retain and regularise promise and pay properly so that an individual who is assured of his "dignity" by preamble to the Constitution of India, is not left in the lurch. 16. It is difficult to accept that respondent No.1 has only the limited role of operating as an 'agent'. And if that were so, then who is the principal? And if employers are permitted to drop employees like hot bricks on the contention of closure of projects, then the system is pushed back to state of slavery. The seed of destruction of such a plea is sown in the steps initiated by the Respondent No. 1. To illustrate (a) some employees were accepted for absorption, (b) Some drivers have already been absorbed and regularised (c) Some employees were ordered to be transferred. That being so, can it be canvassed and accepted that Respondent No.1 operated only as an executing agency? The answer is "monsyllabic no." 17. If injustice is legalised, insurrection will rise. All concerned are thus, expected to become functional evangelists of new social order. Lord Denning elegantly spoke about proper role of a Judge in the following terms. "My root belief is that proper role of a Judge is to do Justice between the parties before him. The answer is "monsyllabic no." 17. If injustice is legalised, insurrection will rise. All concerned are thus, expected to become functional evangelists of new social order. Lord Denning elegantly spoke about proper role of a Judge in the following terms. "My root belief is that proper role of a Judge is to do Justice between the parties before him. If there is any rule of law which impairs the doing of justice, then it is the province of the Judge to do all he legitimately can avoid that rule or even to change it so as to do justice in the instant case before him." 18. Article 39 (d) albeit unenforceable by virtue of Article 37, aims at securing "equal pay for equal work" for both men and women and Article 43 directs the State to endeavour to secure "living wage" . Yet things are bleak, not bright. Robert Inger Soil said' 'There is but one blasphemy, and that is injustice." Injustice needs to be incinerated. Emerson exhorted – "Let law treat men and women well; treat them as if they were real perhaps they are." Paul A. Freund drew attention to an inscription on the wall of the Harvard Law School Library, taken from justinain's Institutes. "The percepts of the law are these--" "To live honourably, not to injure another, to render each his due." The function of law is thus to render each his due. Petitioners are thus, entitled to get protective umbrella of certain purposeful directions within the periphery of law in tone and tune with current needs to spurn ninilism. 19. Yet the question that persists is as to what reliefs are grantable to the petitioners, fearing ouster and fouled by light packets. Aa to the issue of regularisation, the Apex Court held in AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1638 (Madhyamik Siksha Parishad V.P. v. Anil Kumar Mishra and others etc.) that right to regularisation springs only when individual is appointed against a sentioned post and such post is in existance. The implication is that the adhoc engagement anticipatedly spends itself out. The counsel for the petitioners has contended that a cell was created for project work, posts were sanctioned, grades were indicated, rules were laid down and petitioners were appointed against sanctioned posts. Adequate material is, however, not on record to appreciate this branch of argument fully. 20. The implication is that the adhoc engagement anticipatedly spends itself out. The counsel for the petitioners has contended that a cell was created for project work, posts were sanctioned, grades were indicated, rules were laid down and petitioners were appointed against sanctioned posts. Adequate material is, however, not on record to appreciate this branch of argument fully. 20. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, instructions of State Government and Cooperative Societies for absorption (as noted in order rendered in M.P. No. 1781/93) and on consideration of the above quoted decision of Apex Court, I find it fit to dispose of all these 25 petitions with directions against respondent No.1 as under: a) The petitioners shall not be removed from service without proper and legal grounds, just on the plea of closure of project, and without reasonable opportunity of hearing to the concerning individual. b) The petitioners shall be considered for absorption/regularisation against senctioned posts, as may be found in existence at present and as may be available hereafter without unnecessary delay and for this purpose the Respondent No.1 shall prepare list of all persons similarly situate and grant all benefits according to seniority and merit ensuring absence of arbitrariness and hostile discrimination with due regard to Article 14/21 of the Constitution of India. c) Absorption/Regularisation shall be considered from the date of vacancy and arrears of emoluments, if any, shall be paid to such petitioners who are found eligible and entitled for the same from retrospective dates of vacancies. d) The petitioners shall not be transferred or displaced to different places or units without issuance of orders for absorption/regularisation. 21. With the directions as above all these petitions stand disposed of finally with no order as to costs. 22. A copy of this order shall be retained in the connected 24 petitions as perticularised above.