IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No 7555 of 2006
Ram Nath Prasad, son of late Babu Prasad, resident of village -
Chandherpur, Via - Narga, P O - Muktapur, P S - Kalyanpur,
District - Samastipur - Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Bihar
2 The Secretary, Department of Cooperative, Government of Bihar, Patna
3 The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Government of Bihar, Patna
4 The Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Government of Bihar, Patna
- Respondents
WITH
CWJC No 9965 of 2006
1 Haricharan Mahto, son of late Ram Sundar Mahto, resident of village -
Dekari, P S - Khanpur, District - Samastipur
2 Shailendra Shahi, son of Sahdeo Prasad Shahi, resident of village -
Goriawadih, P S - Baraiya, District - Muzaffarpur - Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Bihar
2 The Secretary, Department of Cooperative, Government of Bihar, Patna
3 The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Government of Bihar, Patna
4 The Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Government of Bihar,
Patna - Respondents
-----------
3 20.12.2010 By these two writ petitions, the three petitioners challenge
the order of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies as passed in Case No 66
of 2003 (Annexure-1) which was issued pursuant to directions of this
Court in CWJC No 1103 of 2004 which was disposed of on 26.09.2005.
The facts of the two writ petitions are similar and, as such,
have been taken up for final disposal together at this stage itself with
consent of parties.
The sole petitioner in CWJC No 7555 of 2006 was
appointed as a Clerk in the office of Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies
in January, 1986. Petitioners No 1 and 2 in CWJC No 9965 of 2006 were
appointed on daily wages in the year, 1981 in the office of Joint Registrar,
Cooperative Societies. Subsequently, in the year, 1988-1989, apart from
others, services of the petitioners were terminated on the ground that they
2
were wrongly and illegally appointed. Petitioners challenged the same
before this Court and this Court, in the year, 1992-1993, held that the
order of termination could not be sustained as it was passed without
notice. The termination orders were, thus, set aside and the petitioners
were directed to be reinstated with full back wages. Petitioners were
reinstated on 11.02.1994 with full back wages, as directed by this Court
but immediately thereafter, within a month and a half, they were again
terminated. It appears that some other persons were also terminated being
a group of 73 employees. They preferred appeal before the Secretary,
Department of Cooperative who set aside their termination and directed
their reinstatement. Petitioners also then approached the Secretary who
directed their reinstatement treating them similarly to the earlier batch. It
appears that Department filed a review application before the Secretary.
The Secretary, without notice to these petitioners, reviewed his earlier
order and recalled his order for reinstatement of the petitioners. He
remanded the matter to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies for a fresh
consideration. This time, he refused to treat the petitioners similar to
those who were also dismissed being about 73 in number. Petitioners
challenged this order of the Secretary reviewing his earlier order before
this Court. This Court, in writ petitions, directed the Registrar to examine
the matter and pass speaking order keeping in view the plea of
discrimination. It is obvious that this Court did not interfere with the
order of the Secretary by which the Secretary had reviewed his earlier
order. Now, by the impugned order, the Registrar has refused to treat the
petitioners similar to other 73 persons. This has brought the petitioners to
3
this Court.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in my
view, no cause for interference in the order of the Registrar is made out.
First, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously argued that the case
of the petitioners and those of the 73 other persons were similar. They
must receive similar treatment. In my view, that submission cannot be
accepted. Firstly, it must be remembered that the Rule of Article-14
against discrimination is a positive Rule and not a negative. If someone
has been wrongly reinstated, others cannot blindly follow the same.
Reinstatement is on the basis of personal rights. The second and more
important reason is that, by the impugned order, the Registrar has given
cogent finding in paragraph-13 of the impugned order as to why he cannot
treat the cases similarly. The Registrar found that so far as the 73 other
persons are concerned, they had worked for a very long period before
State took a decision to terminate them on ground of their illegal
appointment. So far as petitioner in the first writ petition is concerned, he
was appointed in 1986 and terminated in 1989. The period was hardly
two to three years. Learned counsel states that this Court directed
petitioner’s reinstatement with back wages and, accordingly, petitioner
was reinstated in the year, 1994 with back wages and, thus, it should be
deemed that the petitioner was in continuous employment from 1988 to
1994 that is eight years. In the facts of the case, it is not correct.
Petitioner was in employment for about 3 years only but because he was
dismissed without show cause, in 1994 he was reinstated with back wages
with continuity of service on this technicality.
4
So far as petitioners in the second writ petition are
concerned, they were appointed in the year, 1991 and their appointments
were cancelled in the year, 1998. As noticed by the Registrar in the
impugned order, in so far as the other 73 persons are concerned, they were
all in service continuously for over nine years and it is because of this
reason that the Secretary reviewed the order which, as noted above, was
not interfered with by this Court. This Court did not set aside the order of
the Secretary on review. The Secretary had remanded the matter to
Registrar for fresh decision which order was merely reiterated by this
Court.
For the aforesaid reason, in my view, on the facts, as
obtaining in the present cases, the plea of hostile discrimination does not
stand established. The petitioners have been out of service since 1994.
They cannot now be ordered to be reinstated in service on ground
aforesaid.
The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)
