Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 273 (PAT)

Jagmohan Giri v. STATE OF BIHAR

2008-02-07

body2008
ORDER Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. 2. The last two write application (viz. CWJC Nos. 12951 and 13010 of 2002) were filed quashing the order the termination of the two petitioners by in order dated 27.7.2002 at Annexure-8. It recites that in pursuance of the order of this Court in CWJC No. 9256/95 the services of 21 persons including the two petitioners and one Gupteshwar Bedua were being terminated. The said Gupteshwar Bedua assailed this order of termination on a common ground in CWJC No. 9458/2002. A Bench of this Court by judgment reported in 2003(1) PLJR 70 , (Shri Gupteshwar Bedua & Ors. Vs. Magadh University & Others), held that that the petitioner did not fall within the ambit of the judgment and directions in CWJC No. 9256/95. This judgement in CWJC No. 9458/2002 came to be questioned by the State in LPA No. 32/2002. 3. When these matters were taken up on 3.12.2002 submission on behalf of the petitioner was that they were situated alike the petitioner in CWJC No. 9458/2002 and were dissimilar from the subject matter of CWJC No. 9256/95. On 10.2.2003 this Court called for the records of CWJC No. 9256/95. An objection was taken on behalf of the University that the judgment in CWJC No.9458/2002 was in question in LPA No. 32/2002 and therefore hearing of these writ petitions should await the decision of the LPA Court. This Court then directed the present matters to be listed after disposal of LPA No. 32/2002. 4. Unfortunately despite the fact that the respondents had taken the specific stand that the present cases be taken up after disposal of the LPA No. 32/2002, when this Court adjourned hearing of the matter, today when the matter is taken up strenuous arguments were sought to be made that notwithstanding dismissal of LPA No. 32/2002 on 5.9.2003 affirming the Bench Decision in CWJC No. 9458 of 2002 the case of the present petitioners was different. 5. This court shall not permit the respondents to do so by adopting contradictory stands at different times. 6. Both the writ applications (viz. CWJC Nos. 12951 & 13010 of 2002) are a lowed in terms of the order in CWJC No. 9458/2002 and LPA No. 32/2002. Like directions are issued to consider the cases of the petitioners for their regularisation/ absorption. 6. Both the writ applications (viz. CWJC Nos. 12951 & 13010 of 2002) are a lowed in terms of the order in CWJC No. 9458/2002 and LPA No. 32/2002. Like directions are issued to consider the cases of the petitioners for their regularisation/ absorption. Let the same be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. In so far as CWJC No. 8048/2004 is concerned, since it arises out of a claim for salary, a necessary concomitant of the same would be factual verification of the period for which the petitioner may have worked or may not have worked for and which his claim for salary would rest. The Court therefore grants him liberty to file a representation before the respondent no.2. On such representation being filed, the respondent no.2 is expected to consider the same and dispose of it in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of such representation.