JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State. 2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. Petitioners have preferred this writ petition for quashing order dated 11.01.2016 passed by the Civil Surgeon, Sahibganj whereby the petitioners have been removed from service as Male Room Attendant. 4. Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were posted and working at Sahibganj Sadar Hospital, as Male Room Attendant. By way of referring annexure-1 to the writ petition, he further submitted that the petitioners were appointed by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Secretary, Management Hospital Committee, Sadar Hospital, Sahibganj vide Memo dated 03.03.2014 and both the petitioners joined on 04.03.2014. He further submitted that vide memo dated 11.01.2016, the petitioners were terminated from the service by the respondent no. 4. He further submitted that without any enquiry or show-cause, the petitioners have been removed from service which is not in accordance with law. 5. Per Contra, Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submitted that the petitioners were appointed as daily wager at Sadar Hospital, Sahibganj. He further submitted that due to paucity of allotment, dues of the petitioner were not paid on time and further a sum of Rs. 1,02,106/- was paid to Sri Nilesh Kumar vide Cheque No. 18337 dated 26.02.2016 and a sum of Rs. 98,782/- was paid to Dilip Sah @ Dilip Kumar Saha vide cheque no. 18336 dated 26.02.2016. Both the payments were realized by cheque. He further submitted that in the meantime, Government of Jharkhand had decided to do the cleaning security 7 operator divers, medical officers and para medix etc. through outsourcing agency and in this connection the allotment was given by letter dated 17.10.2015 by the Principal Secretary, Health Medical Education & Family Welfare Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi. He further submitted that in that view of the matter, now it was incumbent to take all the above work by the outsourcing agency. through outsourcing agency and in this connection the allotment was given by letter dated 17.10.2015 by the Principal Secretary, Health Medical Education & Family Welfare Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi. He further submitted that in that view of the matter, now it was incumbent to take all the above work by the outsourcing agency. He further submitted that in the meeting held on 07.12.2015, it had been resolved that the direction of the Government of Jharkhand be implemented and the work of cleaning, safety etc will be done through outsourcing agency and in that view of the matter impugned order dated 11. 01.2016 was issued against the petitioners. He further submitted that in view of Circular , the daily wager were not required to be continued in the hospital. He further submitted that as the petitioners were daily wager in that view of the matter, no show-cause was required. He further submitted that the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 6. Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that without any show-cause even daily wager cannot be terminated. He relied on judgment passed in W.P.(S) No. 4494 of 2008 “ Anisa Khatoon Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others” dated 03.11.2014. He further relied on judgment passed in W.P.(S) No. 4784 of 2009 “ Pano Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others” dated 07.02.2013. He further relied on judgment in the case of “Sohan Lal Singh Vs. Basic Education Board” delivered by the Allahabad High Court. 7. The Court has perused Annexure-1 which is appointment letter of the petitioners which clearly suggests that the petitioners were appointed on daily wages basis. In view of the Government policy, all the work was decided to take by outsourcing agency and in that view of the matter the petitioners were disengaged from the work and the dues of the petitioners have been paid by way of cheque. Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the case. In “Anisha Khatoon” (Supra), the case was considered for appointment which was made after following due procedure. That is why, the Court has come to the conclusion about show-cause. Accordingly, that order of the Co-ordinate Bench is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In “Anisha Khatoon” (Supra), the case was considered for appointment which was made after following due procedure. That is why, the Court has come to the conclusion about show-cause. Accordingly, that order of the Co-ordinate Bench is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Another judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in “ Pano Devi” (Supra) case, the issue was of Gram Sabha and in that matter, certain processes were conducted in view of guidelines for appointment of Aanganbari Sahayika and in that matter, Court has quashed the impugned order on the point of violation of natural justice. Thus, the said judgment is also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. So far as, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in “Sohan Lal Singh” (Supra) case delivered by the Allahabad High Court, is also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as that was the case of illegal appointment. It was the finding of the Court that the petitioners are victim of spoiled system that is why the court interfered with. 8. It is well-settled proposition of law that the person engaged on daily wages and on closure of scheme the termination can be effected. Directions cannot be given to reinstate their services in absence of any existing vacancy nor can directions be given to create posts in a non-existent establishment. The Court would adopt pragmatic approach in giving directions. The directions would amount to creating of posts and continuing them despite non-availability of the work. In this regard, reference may be made to the case of “State of H.P. through the Secretary Agriculture to the Govt. of H.P., Shimla Vs. Nodha Ram & Others” reported in 1998 SCC (L&S) 478. 9. It is further well-settled proposition of law that casual employee engaged on daily wages basis, on termination of his service, claiming right to continue in service and temporary status covered by the Industrial Disputes Act and remedy lies before the Tribunal or before the Labour Court and not before the High Court. He was not having holding any civil post and in view of termination of service, master-servant relationship ceased rendering provision of the Act. In this regard reference may be made to the case of “Union of India & Others Vs. He was not having holding any civil post and in view of termination of service, master-servant relationship ceased rendering provision of the Act. In this regard reference may be made to the case of “Union of India & Others Vs. Deep Chand Pandey & Another “ reported in (1992) 4 SCC 432 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “6. The present respondents are claiming the right to continue in the employment of the Union of India as before, with additional claim of temporary status and it is, therefore, idle to suggest that such a claim is not covered by the Act. The necessary conclusion, therefore, is, that the remedy of the respondents was before the Tribunal and not the High Court. We, accordingly, hold that the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the respondents. Consequently, the impugned judgment is set aside, the writ petition before the High Court is dismissed and these appeals are allowed, but without costs.” 10. In view of above facts, reference may be made to the case of “State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Vs. Sandhya Tomar & Another” reported in (2013) 11 SCC 357 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “9. There can be no dispute with respect to the settled legal proposition that in the event that a person is not appointed on a regular basis, and if his service is not governed by any statutory rules, he shall be bound by the terms and conditions that have been incorporated in his appointment letter. (Vide State of Punjab Vs. Surinder Kumar). In such an eventually, there can be no reason with respect to why the terms and conditions incorporated in the appointment letter should not be enforced against such an employee. In the instant case, Respondent 1 was temporarily appointed in a project and thus, she had at no point of time, been appointed on a regular basis, owing to which, she cannot claim any lien with respect to the said post.” 11. In view of the cumulative effects of the above discussions, there is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner, so advised, may invoke Industrial Disputes Act by way of raising dispute under the Act.