IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1880 of 2003 1. SAHENDRA KUMAR SINGH, son of Shri Ram Krishna Singh, resident of Nahvan, Post Office Hansadih, P.S. Masaurhi, District Patna 2. Sushil Kumar Vidyarthi, son of Shri Tulsi Singh, resident of Beldarichak, Post Office Parthu, District Patna 3. Vasudeo Singh, son of Shri Lakshaman Singh, resident of village Fatehpur, Post Office Baaraini, District Gaya 4. Rabindra Prasad Singh, son of late Hanuman Singh, resident of village Bishunpur, Post Office Bishunpur Pakri, District Patna 5. Jeetan Singh, son of late Rampati Singh, resident of village Etwarpur, Post Office Parsa Bazar, District Patna 6. Vinay Singh, son of Shri Mithila Sharan Singh, resident of village Bairamchak, Post Office Nadaul, District Patna 7. Subhash Kumar, son of Akildeo Prasad, resident of village Akhtarpur, Post office Lai, District Patna … Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Bihar 2. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Chief Engineer (Mechanical), Mechanical Division, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The Superintending Engineer (Mechanical), Mechanical Division, Road Construction Department, Darbhanga 5. The Superintending Engineer (Mechanical), Mechanical division, Road Construction Department, Patna 6. The Executive Engineer (Mechanical), Mechanical Division, Road Construction Department, Khagaria 7. The Executive Engineer (Mechanical), Mechanical Division, Road Construction Department, Dehri-on- sone … Respondents. ----------- 8. 14.7.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State. The prayer of the seven petitioners in this writ application reads as follows: “(i) For a direction to the 2 respondents to pay the salary and allowances to the petitioner for the period for which they have actually worked. (ii) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other order on direction to quash the order dated 27.8.1998 vide letter no. 6255 (s) Anu by which the Government had taken the decision to terminate 883 persons including the petitioners allegedly to be appointed illegally. (iii) To issue a writ of mandamus on any other order or direction to the respondents to allow the petitioners to resume their respective works as of the petitioners have not got any termination order as yet. (iv) For a direction to implement the compromise decision held between the P.W.D. Workers Union and the State Government officials on 13.12.1998 by which it was decided that the officials will sort out the grievance of the Union which may be done by the Engineer- in-chief and the Secretaries of their concerned departments. (v) For a direction to the respondents for not doing discrimination in respect of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in the case of termination as many similarly 3 situated persons are still in job and getting their regular salary.” Counsel for the petitioners very fairly would submit that the same impugned order of termination of service stands approved by this Court in other writ petitions filed by similarly situated persons and therefore, the petitioners may not be entitled for their reinstatement upon quashing of the order but then they have to be paid their salary for the period they remained in service i.e. upto 29.8.1998. In this case counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed by the official respondents wherein a lot of explanation has been made as with regard to illegal appointment of the petitioners as also some action proposed against the officials who had made such illegal appointment but then there is no cogent reason for denial for payment of salary of the petitioners for the period they remained in service before they were removed from service in terms of the impugned order dated 29.8.1998. In fact in paragraphs no. 3 and 4 of the counter 4 affidavit the official respondents themselves have stated that petitioners no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 were paid salary upto October, 1997, whereas petitioner no.5 was paid salary upto April, 1998. In view of the fact that the order of termination was passed on 29.8.1998 and all the petitioners were appointed on the basis of an order, they would definitely be entitled for payment of salary till the date of their termination of service. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the concerned respondent to pay salary of the petitioners up to the date of 29.8.1998 after taking into account the salary already paid to them in course of their continuation in service or even thereafter. Such exercise must be completed by the respondents within a period of four months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order alongwith a copy of the representation filed by the petitioner showing the amount admissible to them on the head of salary for the period they were not paid up to 29.8.1998. It also goes without saying that 5 the petitioners’ amount of provident fund deducted from their salary shall also be refunded to them as is admitted in the supplementary counter affidavit within the same time. Let it be however made clear that this Court has not interfered with the order of termination of service of the petitioners and has found them only entitled for payment of salary for the period they have remained working prior to issuance of the impugned order of their termination. With the aforementioned observations, clarification and directions, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/