Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 101 (PAT)

Prahlad Kumar Choudhary v. State Of Bihar

2001-02-06

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body2001
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation. 2. Writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.11.2000, contained in Memo no. 2551 (Annexure-1) whereby the Chief Conservator of Forests-cumManaging Director of Bihar State Forest Development Corporation, Patna, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation", has releived the petitioner from service with effect from 1.12.2000 as his services is no more required keeping in view the financial exigency prevailing in the Corporation. 3. it appears that few persons engaged to work on daily wages in the Corporation for some time came up to this Court in C.W.J.C No. 11232 of 1998 and the petitioner also came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 777 of 1999 seeking a direction for regularisation of their services in the Corporation as Accounts Clerk on which post they claimed to be working on daily wages basis for a number of years. This Court vide order dated 13.12.1999, contained in Annexure-18 of the writ application, disposed of C.W.J.C. No. 11232 of 1998 by making observation as follows: "........ as and when the Corporation decides to fill up the posts in a regular manner, it will be open to the petitioners, like any other eligible candidates, to make application for their appointment. I n that event the petitioners will be allowed relaxation in age and would also be given some reasonable weigtage for their past satisfactory service. In the meanwhile, as directed earlier by this Court it will be open to the Corporation to take a decision about the fate of the petitioners. If the petitioners are allowed to continue in the service of the Corporation, having regard to the long years of their service, they will be paid monthly salary at the first stage of the time scale of pay admissible to the post on which they are working and not on any daily wage basis or on any consolidated pay." 4. Writ petition filed by the petitioner was also disposed of in similar terms with expectation that the concerned authorities will take final decision in the case of the petitioners expeditiously and without any undue delay by order dated 21.12.1999, contained in Annexure-18/1. It appears that thereafter the Corporation communicated its decision vide letter no. Writ petition filed by the petitioner was also disposed of in similar terms with expectation that the concerned authorities will take final decision in the case of the petitioners expeditiously and without any undue delay by order dated 21.12.1999, contained in Annexure-18/1. It appears that thereafter the Corporation communicated its decision vide letter no. 1524 dated 15.7.2000, contained in Annexure19/1 that keeping in view the financial condition they are not in a position to allow the petitioner to continue in the regular pay with other facilities. However, the Corporation further asked them as to whether they want to work on daily wages and dearness allowance on it or they want to be relieved and required them to send their reply within a week failing which it would be presumed that they do not want to work on daily wages with dearness allowance. In response to the said letter, it appears that some of the writ petitioners of the earlier writ petition agreed and they were, thus, taken back on the said terms in the employment of the Corporation. Petitioner declined and, as such, by the impugned order he has been relieved. 5. It is submitted by Dr. Jha, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the facts of the case would show that the impugned order is in clear violation of Articles 14, 21 & 23 of the Constitution as also to avoid the direction of this Court in the writ petition whereby this Court directed that if the petitioners are allowed to continue in the service of the Corporation, having regard to the long years of their service, they will be paid monthly salary at the first stage of the time scale of pay admissible to the post on which they are working and not on daily wage basis or on any consolidated pay. It is submitted that the petitioner has been denied of the employment only because he declined to accept the terms of the Corporation, contained in Annexure19/1, which was clearly in the teeth of the order of this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by him and others. He further submitted that the Corporation only recently on 16.1.2001 vide Annexure-17. regularised the services of one Sri Chandeshwar Prasad, who was engaged in the Corporation after the petitioner. 6. Mr. He further submitted that the Corporation only recently on 16.1.2001 vide Annexure-17. regularised the services of one Sri Chandeshwar Prasad, who was engaged in the Corporation after the petitioner. 6. Mr. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, on the other hand, submitted that engagement of Sri Chandeshwar Prasad was in pursuance to the direction of this Court in the writ petition filed by him long back in the year 1993 and the Corporation had no option but to engage him. But the petitioner cannot get any benefit out of the said order (Annexure-17) as the writ petition filed by him earlier being C.W.J.C, No. 2469 of 1990 was dismissed it has been submitted by Mr. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation that the Corporation is presently facing financial . crisis mcreso because of bifurcation of the State/creation of new Jharkhand State in which 87% of the forest, which were being managed and controlled by the Corporation are situated. Under such circumstances, in fact, the Corporation were not in a position to allow any of the petitioners of the earlier writ petition to continue in the service of the Corporation, but the Corporation considered their case sympathetically on their own request and passed order, contained in Annexure19/1, and whoever wanted for their engagement on the said terms, the Corporation engaged them. It is true that the impugned order has been passed as the petitioner declined to act on the terms and conditions on which other writ petitioners of the earlier writ petition have been engaged, but it was on their own request and keeping in view the financial crisis prevailing in the Corporation. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds it difficult to accept the submission of Dr. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is any violation of Articles 14, 21 & 23 of the Constitution. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds it difficult to accept the submission of Dr. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is any violation of Articles 14, 21 & 23 of the Constitution. When the employer itself is facing financial crisis and this Court declined to give relief to the petitioner and others in the writ petitions filed by them earlier for regularisation and permitted the Corporation to take a decision about the fate of the petitioner, there cannot be any question of now invoking Articles 14, 21 & 23 of the Constitution in the present case at the instance of the petitioner, who was also petitioner in one of the earlier writ petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that Annexure-26 would show that reinstatement of other petitioners were on account of the fact that their services were terminated on the orders passed by the Managing Director and there is no decision of the Board of Directors. This Court is unable to accept the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In fact, from the affidavit (Annexure-25) of one of the other petitioners, Jai Kant Chaudhary, who has been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that it was in response to the letter no. 1524 dated 15.7.2000 that the said Sri Chaudhary had taken oath on affidavit expressing his willingness to work on the pay fixed by the Board of Directors and in pursuance thereto other petitioners were taken on their request. 8. There cannot be any question of discrimination between the petitioner and other writ petitioners who have been later engaged as they were engaged on their own request on the terms mentioned above, whereas the petitioner declined to accept the same. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order, contained in Annexure-1, which has been issued in the line of the observation made in the writ petition filed by the petitioner earlier and the writ application is, thus, summarily dismissed. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order, contained in Annexure-1, which has been issued in the line of the observation made in the writ petition filed by the petitioner earlier and the writ application is, thus, summarily dismissed. However, if the petitioner still is ready for his engagement on similar terms as other writ petitioners of the earlier writ petition have been engaged on request made by them, the Corporation may consider his case also sympathetically and dismissal of this writ petition shall not come in the way to deny similar treatment to the present petitioner also.