JUDGMENT A.K. Ganguly, J. 1. In this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the orders which are at Annexures 4, 5, 6 and 8 purporting to terminate their services. 2. The facts of the case as stated by the petitioners, are that the petitioners were appointed initially as daily rated workers in Class IV rank in the year' 1985 in the department of Health. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated that petitioner No. 1 Pawan Kumar was appointed on daily wage basis on 1.3.1985 by the then Additional Chief Medical Officer, Dumka, petitioner No. 2 Ram Chandra Mandal was appointed on daily wage basis by the then Incharge, Medical Officer, Kundhit Primary Health Centre, Dumka. The date of his appointment has not been mentioned in the counter affidavit. It has also been stated that petitioner no. 3 Umbolin Karkatta was engaged on daily rate basis in February, 1990 by the Incharge. Medical Officer, Maselia Primary Health Centre. 4. Even though the petitioners were appointed on daily wage basis initially, their services were regularised by respondent no. 1 in the pay scale of Rs. 7751025/- and in the order regularising their services passed by respondent no. 1 it has also been stated that the petitioners were entitled to the payment of Dearness Allowances and other allowances as may be admissible to them and they were asked to submit medical certificates at the time of their joining. 5. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the said order of regularisation, the petitioners joined as regular employees in the Health Department, Government of Bihar. Subsequent thereto notices were issued sometime on 10.9.1993 to all the petitioners asking them to show cause why their services should not be terminated as from the show cause notice it appears that the respondents authorities have found that the petitioners were appointed without following the regular norms of such appointments. It may be mentioned herewith that in the notice asking the petitioners to show cause, the petitioners have not been asked to show cause why the regularisation of their services should not be quashed. They have been asked to show cause why their initial recruitment should not be withdrawn or recalled. It may be mentioned herewith that in the notice asking the petitioners to show cause, the petitioners have not been asked to show cause why the regularisation of their services should not be quashed. They have been asked to show cause why their initial recruitment should not be withdrawn or recalled. It may be stated here that after the initial recruitment, the petitioners' services have been regularised and after regularisation the infirmity, if any in the initial recruitment, does not survive. It is, however, made clear that once the services of the petitioners have been regularised and they became the regular employees of the State Government, they are entitled to the procedural safeguards which are envisaged in the relevant rules pursuant to the constitutional guarantee under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. If the State Government is of the view that the services of the petitioners have been regularised in a manner which is not according to law, they are to give the petitioners the benefit of the procedural safeguard which is available to a regular employee by (sic) proceeding. In the instant case nothing of the kind has been done. Merely the petitioners have been asked to give reply to a show cause notice and the petitioners did reply to the said show cause notice. Thereafter without holding any kind of proceeding the impugned orders of termination have been passed in identical language in respect of the three petitioners. 6. This Court cannot, in view of the well settled legal position that the services of an employee is his livelihood and when a person is deprived of the same, the same can be done only in accordance with the procedure which is just, fair and reasonable, hold that the procedure in this case by the State Government for terminating the services of the petitioners is either just or fair and as such the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 7. The impugned orders are, therefore, quashed. It will however, be open to the State Government, if they are so advised, to initiate an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. As' the impugned orders of termination have been quashed by this Court, the respondents are directed to forthwith reinstate the petitioners in service. 7. The impugned orders are, therefore, quashed. It will however, be open to the State Government, if they are so advised, to initiate an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. As' the impugned orders of termination have been quashed by this Court, the respondents are directed to forthwith reinstate the petitioners in service. It is, however, made clear that after reinstatement, the petitioners are entitled to the continuity of service but they will not be paid anything by way' of arrears of salary for the period they did not work. 8. This writ petition is thus allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to cost.