Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1009 (PAT)

State of Bihar v. Sheo Bhajan Prasad Diwakar

2015-08-11

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, NILU AGRAWAL

body2015
JUDGMENT : NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, J. All these cases are inter-linked with the fate of judgment of learned Single Judge in the case of Sheo Bhajan Prasad Diwakar and others Versus State of Bihar and others being C.W.J.C. No. 8418/2010 decided on 21.04.2011. 2. The question is, whether the State could legitimately distinguish and differentiate between the retrenched Non-Formal Supervisors and Non-Formal Instructors as a consequence of closure of the scheme in the State. The former i.e. Non-Formal Supervisors were rehabilitated, pursuant to the Government policy decision dated 12th January, 2010. But, when it came to the Instructors i.e. Non-Formal Instructors, they were left high and dry. Several writ petitions were filed, one of them was the instant writ proceedings. 3. There are several intervention applications, we need not pass any order thereon because the benefit being given to be applicable to all similarly situated persons. 4. On behalf of the writ petitioners, it was urged before the learned Single Judge that all the retrenched persons, may they be Supervisors or Instructors, form a singular class, and were thrown on the roads pursuant to closure of the scheme without any semblance of employment. The State, on the other hand, took stand that Supervisors, who were drawing remuneration of about Rs. 600/- per month and were far less in number, were a class by themselves, whereas the Instructors, who were at least five times the Supervisors and were drawing remuneration of only Rs. 200/- per month, form a class by themselves. They had different responsibilities and different educational qualifications, therefore, they were two different classes. Absorbing one and leaving out the other, was neither discrimination nor arbitrary classification, and thus, was held to be rational. 5. The learned Single Judge, upon examination of the facts, held and we respectfully concur that the classification, prior to retrenchment or closure of the scheme, is of no relevance. Both the classes i.e. Supervisors and Instructors, upon closure of the scheme, were on the road with no source of employment or livelihood. They form a singular class. Any distinction, as being, sought to be made by the State between Supervisor and Instructor, at this stage and at this point of time, was illusionary and had no nexus with the rights of those persons to seek absorption. 6. They form a singular class. Any distinction, as being, sought to be made by the State between Supervisor and Instructor, at this stage and at this point of time, was illusionary and had no nexus with the rights of those persons to seek absorption. 6. We are of the view that both groups sought to be rehabilitated having worked in the scheme for long period, some running for more than to two decades. Therefore, we are also of the view that all those, who were in the scheme, either as Supervisor or as Instructor, when the scheme was discontinued for the purposes of rehabilitation and/or absorption and/or employment, have to be treated as one group. Of course, while considering the placement, distinction has to be made because of inherent difference in their qualification and the job experience. But, that distinction is only for the purposes of placement and is not relevant for the purposes of consideration and/or being accepted for rehabilitation. 7. In this Intra-Court Appeal, State has now sought to bring about a distinction, post termination of scheme, they have stated that on an average under each Supervisor, there were about minimum five Instructors. Thus, if the total number of Supervisors were about 5000, the number of Instructors would be 25,000. Mathematically and logically this may be correct, but, practically this distinction is not relevant today. Today, we are almost 15 years from the time when the scheme was wound up. In these 15 years, first, large number of Instructors would have already shared to the State of Jharkhand, then good number could have reached the age of superannuation, and lastly, as per the policy decision, in respect of the Supervisors, not all would have been working on the day when the scheme was discontinued, and simultaneously not all would have worked continuously for three years. If all these restrictions, eventualities or events are kept in mind, the number of Instructors left fighting for survival would be far less and would be even less than 10,000, then would the welfare State be helpless to help these helpless people. We think not. 8. Having taken a policy decision to rehabilitate non-formal Supervisors and this Court having held that the distinction being drawn between Supervisors and Instructors having no legal basis, this policy has to extend to the Instructors. Not extending the same would be more arbitrary than extending. 9. We think not. 8. Having taken a policy decision to rehabilitate non-formal Supervisors and this Court having held that the distinction being drawn between Supervisors and Instructors having no legal basis, this policy has to extend to the Instructors. Not extending the same would be more arbitrary than extending. 9. Having considered the matter, it is unnecessary for us to take note of various stages to which this litigation has travelled. Suffice it to say that the only distinction that was being made was the classification preretrenchment and extending it to post-retrenchment, which they have already deprecated. The result being that State Appeal has to be dismissed and the writ petitions have to be allowed, also the Civil Review would have to be allowed. 10. We would only like to add that the State policy in respect of Supervisors be adopted mutatis mutandis with only addition that it would apply to the Instructors, who were found working for three years continuously, at the time when the non-formal education scheme was abolished, in which they were. The respondents/writ petitioners do not insist on Class III posts but submits that State Government should take them into service even on Class IV posts as per the vacancies available in different Departments. It surely cannot extend to people, who, at any distinct point of time, had worked for a short period and then left the work. They can have no legitimate claim in this regard. 11. In view of the aforesaid, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with observations and directions contained hereinabove. The tagged writ petitions are allowed in the same terms, the Civil Review is also allowed and the writ petition stands disposed of. 12. Needless to say that most of the Instructors would be in advance age group, the rehabilitation cannot be provided, of course, not to extend to those who have reached the age of superannuation or are towards the end of their working career. 13. It is expected that the State Government would take expeditious steps to see that eligible people are rehabilitated, such processes should be completed within a period of six months.