IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11827 of 1996 MANZOOR AHMAD Son of Sri Dilawar Hussain, resident of Village-Mohammadpur Patti, P.S.-Gautam Bhuda Nagar, District-Siwan Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary to Government, Water Resources Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna. 2. Deputy Secretary to Government, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna. 3. Chief Engineer and Director, Water Resources Department, Water and Land Management Institute, Khagaul, Patna. 4. Executive Engineer, Training Division No. 2, Water and Land Management Institute, Khagaul, Patna. ----------- For the Petitioner: - Mr. Amber Nath Banerji, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Shekhar, Adv. For the State: - Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to AAG-9 ------------- 13. 18.11.2010 Petitioner was appointed in the work charge establishment as a Jeep Driver as per letter of appointment dated 3.5.1988 contained in Annexure- 3. In 1996 by virtue of Annexure-1, his service was terminated with effect from 1.12.96. The letter of termination states that the necessary procedure laid down under the Industrial Dispute Act will be followed in due course. This order has become the subject matter of challenge in the writ application, when it was filed. When the matter was taken up on 29.11.1996, learned Single Judge stayed the impugned Annexure-1 during the pendency of the application. Since then petitioner has continued to 2 work under the respondents in the same capacity in the same position in which he was. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a mechanical kind of order has been passed without any substantive basis or ground for such a termination. After all petitioner came to be appointed because there was necessity of the post and utility of the petitioner to the organization when initial engagement was made. After 1988, he continued to work for almost 8 to 9 years before the termination was effected. In normal course of things, after 5 years he ought to have been considered for regularization or at least being placed in the regular establishment. But none of this was done, the reason for termination seems to be that he was appointed after 21.10.1984 and there was an embargo on appointment of such kind thereafter. The appointment on such posts at the relevant time and in the manner done was nothing unique. That was the methodology which used to be followed in large number of cases. This is not the first case of its kind as thousands of such matters have travelled to this Court and even interfered with. On the face of the record, the order of termination of the petitioner contained in Annexure-1 seems to be 3 illegal. The termination cannot be effected without following the requirements laid down under the Industrial Dispute Act, which is a pre-condition. It cannot be the case of the respondents that they will terminate first and adopt the procedure laid down in the Act at their own convenience. The explanation offered by the State in the Counter affidavit does not answer this basic legal question as to how they support the impugned order and as to how it is within the parameters of the law laid down in this regard. Obviously, the respondents have acted in haste in issuing the order of termination and without following the basic requirement of the Industrial Dispute Act. Annexure-1 therefore, is quashed but matter is left to the respondents to decide as to the status of the present petitioner. However, they would keep in mind that the petitioner had entered service in the year 1988 and he has continued to work for many a years now which is well over 22 years. This aspect should not be over looked as such in taking any clear decision on this score. This writ application stands allowed. Anand Kr. ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)