IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12645 of 2006 NAGESHWAR PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.12529 of 2006 DINESH KUMAR & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.12763 of 2006 UPENDRA PRASAD SINGH @ UPENDRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.12764 of 2006 LALAN SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.12774 of 2006 GANGA SAGAR PASWAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.13201 of 2006 BHARAT MAHTO Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.13220 of 2006 CHANDESHWAR PANDIT Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.13221 of 2006 HARI SHANKAR PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.13232 of 2006 KUSUM BIHARI LAL - 2 - Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.13239 of 2006 UMA SHANKAR PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.13309 of 2006 DAYANAND MANDAL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.13370 of 2006 RAMANUJ SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.13371 of 2006 RAMJEE SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.13372 of 2006 PARMANAND SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.13423 of 2006 BINDESHWARI PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.13424 of 2006 HARE KRISHNA SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.13427 of 2006 RAMAUTAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with - 3 - CWJC No.13429 of 2006 BRAHMDEO DAS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.13447 of 2006 SRI KANT SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.13449 of 2006 SUKHDEO PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.13461 of 2006 INDERDEO PRASAD CHOUDHARY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.13468 of 2006 VIJAY KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.13471 of 2006 PRADEEP KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.13472 of 2006 KAPILDEO PRASAD SINGH (SINCE DEAD) MOST. RAMUN DEVI AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.13474 of 2006 BINOD KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.13488 of 2006 - 4 - BRAJ NANDAN PASWAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.13523 of 2006 SRI RAM SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.13548 of 2006 ARBIND KUMAR SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.13549 of 2006 RAM BALAK SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.15514 of 2006 ABINASH SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.13579 of 2006 RAJENDRA CHAUDHARY & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.13998 of 2006 BIRENDRA LAL SRIVASTAWA & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.14095 of 2006 AWADHESH KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.14397 of 2006 CHITESHWAR PRASAD SINGH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS - 5 - with CWJC No.14399 of 2006 XAVIER JAUNDI KURUS & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.15014 of 2006 ASHOK KUMAR Versus THE BISCOMAN THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN with CWJC No.15394 of 2006 RAM PRVSH RAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.15404 of 2006 UDAY SHANKAR Versus THE BISCOMAN THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN with CWJC No.15463 of 2006 RAJESHWAR MANDAL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.15648 of 2006 SURYA NARAYAN RAI & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.15734 of 2006 RAJNARAYAN JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.15754 of 2006 JAY SHANKAR PRASHAD JAISHAWAL@ JAY SHANKAR JAISHWAL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.15776 of 2006 - 6 - RAM AAGAR PANDAY @ RAM SAGAR PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.15851 of 2006 SHIVMANGAL SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.15896 of 2006 TARKESHWAR PRASAD SINHA & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.15984 of 2006 RAJ MANGAL SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.16016 of 2006 JAIKANT JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.16017 of 2006 PRABHU NATH SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.16149 of 2006 DINESHWAR PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.16206 of 2006 SITA RAM SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.16277 of 2006 BHOLA MAHTO & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS - 7 - with CWJC No.214 of 2007 NAGESHWAR PRASAD YADAV & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.375 of 2007 RJENDRA MANDAL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.512 of 2007 CHANDRA NARAYAN MISHRA & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.763 of 2007 MAHENDRA PANDEY & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.808 of 2007 KRISHNA NANDAN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR with CWJC No.1070 of 2007 AWADHESH KUMAR SINGH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.1381 of 2007 RADHA KRISHNA JHA Versus THE M.D.,BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING UNION LTD.& ORS with CWJC No.1426 of 2007 KALAKTOR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.1575 of 2007 - 8 - RANA BINDESHWARI SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.1670 of 2007 UDAY SHANKAR Versus THE BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING UNION LTD. & ORS with CWJC No.1722 of 2007 UMA SHANKER PRASAD SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.1931 of 2007 NAGENDRA SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.2449 of 2007 VIJAY KUMAR SINGH Versus THE M.D.,BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY & ORS with CWJC No.2528 of 2007 NARESH PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.2695 of 2007 JAVINDRA YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.2763 of 2007 SARYU SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.3682 of 2007 AFJAL HUSSAIN ANSARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS - 9 - with CWJC No.3707 of 2007 DADAN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.3734 of 2007 UPENDRA KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.3760 of 2007 SHAMBHU SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.3844 of 2007 SIYA RAM SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.3850 of 2007 AKLESH RAM @ AKHILESH RAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.3882 of 2007 YOGENDRA PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.3932 of 2007 RAM CHARITRA SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.3950 of 2007 SURESH KUMAR SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR with CWJC No.3991 of 2007 - 10 - SURESH PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4038 of 2007 SHASHI KUMAR VERMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4044 of 2007 PARSHURAM SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4057 of 2007 PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4081 of 2007 DEOKANT LAL DAS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4083 of 2007 MANOJ KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4087 of 2007 LALIT KUMAR THAKUR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4163 of 2007 SATENDRA PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4185 of 2007 DEVENDRA CHOUDHARY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS - 11 - with CWJC No.4204 of 2007 SANT KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4212 of 2007 LACHHUMAN PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4226 of 2007 RAJ KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4232 of 2007 RAJESHWAR RAY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4234 of 2007 RAM NARESH KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4373 of 2007 SURENDRA MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4376 of 2007 SAKALDEO PASWAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4716 of 2007 BIRENDRA PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4727 of 2007 - 12 - YOGENDRA SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4868 of 2007 ASHOK KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4915 of 2007 SHAILENDRA KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4929 of 2007 PRABHU DYAL PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4930 of 2007 SIDH NATH PATHAK Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4937 of 2007 GYAN CHANDRA PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4939 of 2007 VIJAY BAHADUR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4941 of 2007 RAMAKANT SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4942 of 2007 RAMESHWAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS - 13 - with CWJC No.4944 of 2007 RAJENDRA PRASAD PASWAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.4946 of 2007 KRISHNA BACHCHA SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.5516 of 2007 ARJUN PRASAD SINGH Versus BISCOMAUN & ANR with CWJC No.6124 of 2007 MRITUNJAY PATHAK Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.6366 of 2007 SANT KUMAR CHAUHAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.6372 of 2007 RANGJEE SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.6382 of 2007 CHANDESHWER RAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.6404 of 2007 SHEO KUMAR RAM Versus BISCOMAUN THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR & OTHERS with CWJC No.6427 of 2007 - 14 - BIRENDRA PRATAP SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.6661 of 2007 RAMANUJ PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.6686 of 2007 SURYA DAYAL SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.6734 of 2007 BINDHYACHAL SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.6759 of 2007 MADAN RAY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.6801 of 2007 BHAGWAN RAI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.6867 of 2007 RAM CHANDRA PRASAD Versus BISCOMAUN THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR & OTHERS with CWJC No.7016 of 2007 MD.MASIHUDIN SHAH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.7248 of 2007 SAKALDEEP SAH Versus BISCOMAUN THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR & OTHERS - 15 - with CWJC No.7501 of 2007 DHRU RAY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.7546 of 2007 KANHAIYA PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.7814 of 2007 UPENDRA SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.8090 of 2007 SURENDRA PRASAD Versus BISCOMAUN & ORS with CWJC No.8091 of 2007 DEEP NARAYAN PRASAD Versus BISCOMAN & ORS with CWJC No.8136 of 2007 DEVENDRA PRASAD Versus BISCOMAUN & ORS with CWJC No.8178 of 2007 SACHIDA NAND KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.8318 of 2007 RAS BIHARI RAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.10374 of 2007 - 16 - BHARAT PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.10406 of 2007 BHAGGU RAI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.10409 of 2007 RAMAYAN PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.10466 of 2007 PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.10544 of 2007 SHIV PUKAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.10552 of 2007 RAM AYODHYA PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.10771 of 2007 HARISHWAR DAYAL SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.10782 of 2007 DAYA SHANKAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.10859 of 2007 SHESH NATH SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS - 17 - with CWJC No.10890 of 2007 RAVINDRA SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.11109 of 2007 HARI NANDAN RAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.11301 of 2007 MD.SAMSUL HAQUE KHAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.11424 of 2007 GAUTAM PRASAD SHRIVASTAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.12435 of 2007 RAMDEO PRASAD SINGH Versus THE BISCOMAN,THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN & OTHERS with CWJC No.14280 of 2007 AWADH KISHORE SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.15238 of 2007 RAMUDIT SINGH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.3685 of 2007 LAL BAHADUR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.13026 of 2006 - 18 - KUMAR JYOTI VARDHAN & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.6949 of 2007 BIHARI SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ****** FOR THE PETITIONERS : M/S. S. K. VERMA,SR. ADVOCATE , SURENDRA KISHORE VERMA AND JITENDRA KISHORE VERMA. FOR THE BISCOMAUN : M/S. SUNIL KUMAR SINGH NO.1, KUMAR SHAILESH AND RAKESH KUMAR RANJAN ******* 5 1/10/2008 All the petitioners are night guards and claim themselves to be permanent employees of what is known as Bihar State Co- operative Marketing Union Limited (BISCOMAUN), an apex co- operative body, created and registered under the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act. The body in question was established way back in the year 1954. It has its own Bye-laws and a Board of Directors headed by Chairman to run the affairs. The reason why such large number of writ applications have been filed is that some of the petitioners have been issued notices dated 25.9.2006 which is annexure-2 to CWJC No. 12645 of 2006 asking them to show cause as to why their services should not be terminated. They are about a dozen and half petitioners of this kind. The rest are aggrieved by an identical order of termination passed on 31.10.2006, one of them is annexure-2(ii) contained in I.A. NO. 5278 of 2006 filed in CWJC No. 13371 of 2006 (Ramjee Singh v. The State of Bihar and others). It is clarified that since both the notices for termination as well as the actual order of - 19 - termination are identical it was agreed upon that since common questions of law are involved they all be heard and decided together, may be by a common order. It is in this background that all these writ applications have been heard and are being decided together. There is not much of variance in facts or the questions of law which emerge for consideration and decision. Facts of Nageshwar Prasad Singh’s case against notice: Majority of these petitioners were appointed on the post of a night guard on daily wages at Rs.6/- per day, some time in the year 1975 onwards. Some of the engagement orders which are on record categorically states that the engagements are purely temporary and liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason thereof. All the appointees thereafter continued to work in that capacity for many a years as would be evident from annexure-1 (i). Subsequently the Board of Directors in its meeting No. 1983 dated 23.11.1983 decided to provisionally confer status of a permanent employee on a large category of employees on the post they are holding which is reflected in annexure-4 to the writ application. In so far as night guards are concerned there were 731 in number who were supposedly appointed between 5.4.1975 to 28.6.1983. In para 7 of annexure-4 there is indication that these appointments were being made to carry out the activities of various projects which BISCOMAUN was carrying on at the relevant time. These were the heydays of BISCOMAUN and varied business were being carried out which included sale of fertilizers, seeds, insecticides, coal etc. - 20 - Based on the decision of the Board of Directors, (Annexure- 4), petitioners came to be given a pay-scale and other emoluments which was to be effective from 1.1.1984. This would be corroborated by the order which has been brought on record as annexure-1(iii). Similar kinds of orders, it seems, were issued at the local level and all these petitioners came to acquire a kind of permanent status and performed their duties at their places of posting. All had been well thereafter till the body in question came to be superseded by the State Government and an Administrator came to be appointed to run the day-to-day affairs. Though the supersession was made purportedly by the State Government, in the interest of the apex body but things took a nose-dive and the financial condition of the body took a severe beating. It is not disputed at the bar and the Court also does take judicial notice of this fact that majority of employees of BISCOMAUN are not being paid salary from the year 1995 onwards. Hundreds of writ applications are filed seeking directions upon the respondents for payment of salary, past and present and at times payment of retrial dues as well. In the above background a decision seems to have been taken by the Board of Directors on 21.8.2005 to terminate the services of all the night guards because the Society neither had utility nor the funds to utilize the services of the petitioners. Based on the decision of the Board of Directors, the Managing Director decided to issue notices asking for a show cause as to why their services be not terminated and identical notice therefore dated 25.9.2006, contained in - 21 - annexure-2, was issued to some employees including this petitioner. Some of the writ applications therefore is against notice to show cause, pre-termination. Facts of Ramjee Singh’s case against termination: Some of the basic facts which have been noticed by the Court with regard to Nageshwar Prasad Singh’s case are identical. In this writ application and other writs the difference is that in the case of these petitioners (about 632) their services have been terminated by an identical order dated 31.10.2006, though issued individually. One of the order is annexure-2 (ii) in I.A. No. 5278 of 2006 filed in the writ application. The largest number of petitioners therefore are before this Court challenging the order of termination. Submissions on behalf of the petitioners: The basic or the preliminary submission which has been made on behalf of the petitioners is that since all of them acquired a permanent status by virtue of a decision of the Board of Directors taken way back in the year 1983, they cannot be terminated in this arbitrary manner by a common kind of order without holding any departmental enquiry or in absence of any wrong doing on their part. No permanent employee can be removed merely on the basis of a notice and that too issued on a large scale. A permanent employee has a right to continue in that capacity till he reaches the age of superannuation. They have a vested right to the post and the entire exercise of either issuing show cause for termination or actual order of termination is per say illegal. A submission is also made with regard - 22 - to such petitioners who have been issued notice to show cause is that since the respondents have not acted upon them for a couple of years it will be deemed to have been waived by now. They also submit that the appointment to the post was not for a scheme and the reasons for termination are imaginary. Since identical orders which are xerox copies have been issued to all the petitioners it shows total lack of application of mind. It is also urged that a reading of the orders of termination or the show cause would show that the reasons given are conflicting in nature. Yet another submission is that since Board of Directors has already taken a decision on 20.8.2005 to remove the petitioners even the formality of notice amounts to a post decisional hearing and therefore is no hearing in the eyes of law. The above submissions have been compiled together which was made by various counsels on behalf of the petitioners and shall be dealt with in the subsequent part of the order. Submissions on behalf of the respondents: On behalf of the respondent BISCOMAUN two model counter affidavits have been filed, one in the case of Nageshwar Prasad Singh which deals with notice to show cause and the other in the case of Ramjee Singh which deals with termination. It is urged that the counter affidavits should be treated as the stand of the respondents in all the cases. The stand of the respondents, therefore, are culled out from these two counter affidavits as well as the submissions made at the bar. The preliminary submission made on behalf of the - 23 - respondents is that there is no wrong doing in removing or terminating the petitioners from their posts because there is no utility or purpose of their retention in service any more. Petitioners have got no legal/fundamental right to challenge the impugned orders for the following reasons: (a) The appointment was made for a specific purpose/scheme purely on temporary basis without following the regular process of recruitment. (b) Although the appointment was regularized at a subsequent point of time but even such regularization was made subject to condition that the appointment being temporary in nature could be terminated at any time without any show cause, having regard to the specific nature of appointment. (c) The initial appointment itself was made in the exigency of the situation without following the due process of regular appointment like advertisement, interview and adherence to the reservation rule and number of sanctioned vacancies. (d) The respondent BISCOMAUN had no other option but to issue a show cause notice for termination of services and in some cases orders of termination of services on the receipt of show cause, once the society discovered to its surprise that due to the closure/abandonment of the scheme under which such appointments had been made, the large work force in Class-IV cadre had become surplus and that the financial condition of the society had worsened so much so that the society was not in a position to bear the burden - 24 - of the surplus workforce particularly when the rehabilitation package/scheme prepared by the society for consideration of the State Government was not getting any positive response despite several meetings having been held at the government level for the said purposes. Further submission on behalf of the respondents is that way back in the year 1976 itself, the Agriculture Department of the Government of Bihar had given a direction to BISCOMAUN under letter No. 18002, dated 16.11.1976, issued under the signature of the Secretary to open depots and sales centres in a large number of command areas/ blocks of Bihar where BISCOMANUN did not have its own depots or sale centres. In the said letter, it was however said that the Government would compensate BISCOMAUN for the losses incurred by it on account of the opening and running of such depots or sale centres. BISCOMAUN had to comply with the aforesaid direction of the Agriculture Department of the State Government and had to open depot/sale centres in the different command areas/blocks of Bihar for execution of the said scheme of the Agriculture Department. In order to carry out the scheme of the Agriculture Department, BISCOMAUN had to recruit a large number of persons as Night Guards/Khalasi etc. in Class-IV cadre