JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioners in all these writ petitions were employees of the Gaya Municipal Corporation. They have been terminated by various orders passed in May, 1999 by the Administrator of the Municipal Corporation. The common line which runs through all these termination orders is that pursuant to enquiry report submitted by the District Magistrate, Gaya to the Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar found the appointment of petitioners to be illegal and as such directed the Administrator to terminate the services of the petitioners. It is pursuant to that, to complete formalities the Administrator issued notices to the petitioners and then acted on the dictates of the State Government terminated the services. From the impugned order one thing further is clear that there is absolutely no application of mind by the Administrator. He has mechanically acted upon the directions of the State Government in this regard. Petitioners have relied on two judgments of this Court wherein these very Annexures have been set aside. They are annexed as Annexure-12 series to the first writ application i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 5044 of 1999 which was allowed on 30.3.2000 and C.W.J.C. No. 5837 of 2000 with analogous cases which was allowed on 8th of January, 2003. The writ petitions were allowed and the order of termination quashed on the ground that the exercise of terminating services of an employee is a quasi judicial exercise of power. Such a quasi judicial exercise has to be conducted in consonance with the principle of natural justice. 2. Here it was undisputed that the Authority had acted on the dictates of the State Government. This was disapproved referring to the settled principle in this regard that quasi judicial authority has to act independently on his own and his actions are vitiated if he acts on the dictates of any person. Reliance in this regard may be placed on decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji since reported in AIR (39) 1952 SC 16. 3. On behalf of petitioners, it is submitted that as several persons in the same notice have succeeded before this Court the same result should follow so far as petitioners are concerned. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that some writ petitions were subsequently dismissed on grounds of delay. 3. On behalf of petitioners, it is submitted that as several persons in the same notice have succeeded before this Court the same result should follow so far as petitioners are concerned. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that some writ petitions were subsequently dismissed on grounds of delay. One such order has been appended as Annexure-A being C.W.J.C. No. 8507 of 2003 which was dismissed in limine on 26.8.2003. A reference to this order does hot show whether earlier judgments of this Court were brought to the notice of their Lordships whereby writ petitions were allowed and the dismissal order set aside. The dismissal has been merely on the ground of delay. It appears from the, order-sheet of the first writ petitioin i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 14089 of 2003 that on the very first occasion this Court had questioned the propriety of opposition of the writ petition on the grounds of delay in view of the fact that the same very notices of termination had been set aside by this Court earlier. 4. Having considered the matter, in my view the writ petition must succeed. 5. Firstly it would be very anomalous if in a situation where, by the same notice large number of people are dismissed, some of them come to this Court and the dismissal orders are set aside and they are reinstated. Some who are waiting in the wings and come later on, their writ petitions are dismissed. This would indeed be an anomalous situation where the same Annexure on the same set of facts and same set of circumstances is valid for someone and invalid for someone other. Normally such a situation should not be permitted. In this connection. Some who are waiting in the wings and come later on, their writ petitions are dismissed. This would indeed be an anomalous situation where the same Annexure on the same set of facts and same set of circumstances is valid for someone and invalid for someone other. Normally such a situation should not be permitted. In this connection. I may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the cae of Ashwani Kumar and Others vs. The State of Bihar and Others since reported in A.I.R. 1997 SC 1628 [: 1997(1) PUR (SC)59] and in particular what their Lordships said in respect of this in paragraph-17 which is quoted hereunder: "..........Nor can we say that benefit can be made available only to 1363 appellants before us as the other employees similarly circumscribed and who might not have approached the High Court or this Court earlier and who may be waiting in the wings would also be entitled to claim similar relief against the State which has to give equal treatment to all of them otherwise it would be held guilty of discriminatory treatment which could not be countenanced under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India........." 6. In my view, this Court must be consistent in the matter. Once orders have earlier been held to be bad, they cannot be then held to be valid and not interfered with subsequently in view of the observations of the Supreme Court as noted above and also in view of maintaining consistency in the matter. 7. All the writ petitions are allowed. Termination orders of the petitioners are thus quashed. However, petitioners would not be entitled to any back wages from the period of termination till the time they are reinstated but that period may be counted for pensionary and other reliefs to give them continuity in services. This would also not preclude the respondent Corporation from reinitiating the proceedings and passing appropriate orders in accordance with law afresh if so advised.