2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19429 of 2010 1. SUNNY KUMAR, son of Sri Ashok Kumar Jha, resident of E1/22, Jai Prakash Nagar, Digha Ashiana Road, P.S. Rajeev Nagar, District-Patna 2. Deepak Kumar Chokhani, son of Sri Kali Prasad Chokhani, resident of Janki Prasad Lane, Near Goverdhan Mandir, Mundichak, P.S. Tilkamanjhi, District- Bhagalpur. 3. Shambhu Paswan, son of Sri Bikram Paswan, resident of Mohalla Bela Shankar, P.O. Lalbagh, P.S. L.N.M.U.,Darbhanga, District-Darbhanga…. Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary, Industries Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Chairman, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Patna. 3. The Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Patna. 4. The Secretary, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Patna. 5. The Executive Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Area office, Patna….. Respondents. with CWJC No.18620 of 2010 1. UDAY KUMAR, son of Sri Yogendra Ram, resident of Sugaon Dih, P.S. Sugauli, District- East Champaran (Motihari). 2. Gunjan Kumar, son of Sri Ram Kumar Prasad, resident of New Colony Chhotki Delha, Gali No.4, Road No.2, P.O. & P.S. Gaya, District- Gaya…………… Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary, Industries Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Chairman, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Patna. 3. The Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Patna. 4. The Secretary, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, patna. 5. The Executive Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Area Office, Muzaffarpur……… Respondents. ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate (In both cases) For BIADA: Mr. Lalit Kishore, Senior Advocate 2 (In both cases) Mr. Piyush Lall, Advocate Smt. Binita Singh, Advocate For the State: Mr. Raza Ahmad,Senior Advocate Mr. Kamil Akhtar, A.C. to AAG-9 ------------ 6. 18.5.2011 Both the writ petitions have been filed by five employees of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, who had been appointed on contractual basis on the post of Executive for a period of one year by the orders contained in Letter Nos. 6262, 6114 and 1342 dated 22.12.2007, 15.12.2007 and 16.2.2008 respectively. Their services were terminated with effect from 30.10.2008 on the ground that it was no more required in terms of Paragraph No. 1.6 (b) of BIADA Regulations, 2007; as many as six such Executive appointed on contractual basis were affected by the said order. One of them Ashok Kumar Mahto filed C.W.J.C. No.16211 of 2010, which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 1.10.2010 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent Bihar Industrial Development Authority filed L.P.A. No.232/2011, which was allowed by order dated 7.4.2011 setting aside the order of the learned single Judge. However, in the said order on appeal the 3 submission of learned counsel for Ashok Kumar Mahto was noted that his wife was a cancer patient and was undergoing treatment in Mahabir Cancer Sansthan and he did not have sufficient fund to treat his wife and the Division Bench of this Court observed that though the judgment and order of the learned single Judge is set aside, but it was of the view that the payment of salary should be made by the Corporation for the period during which the contract was in existence. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases prays that similar relief be granted to the present writ petitioners also by making payment of salary for the period during which the tenure of their respective contracts was in existence. This Court is unable to accept any such plea of learned counsel for the petitioners. It is evident from the order dated 7.4.2011 passed in L.P.A. No.232/2011 that the payment of salary was ordered therein on the basis of the special facts of Ashok Kumar Mahto’s case. Not only the petitioners have failed to bring any such special facts but once it is held that the order terminating contractual service was not illegal and this Court cannot interfere, there can be 4 no question of directing payment of salary for the remaining period of contract. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions, there being no merit in both the writ applications and they are, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )