Posted On by &filed under High Court, Patna High Court - Orders.

Patna High Court – Orders
Ram Nath Prasad vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 20 December, 2010
                            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
         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
                            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
           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
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
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.


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


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


The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.

M.E.H./                                        (Navaniti Prasad Singh)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

8 queries in 0.107 seconds.