IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15549 of 2005 BASUDEO PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.394 of 2006 RAMJEET SINGH & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.12447 of 2008 BABAN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 6 8.9.2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. All the writ petitioners have been removed from service by virtue of an order dated 18.7.2002 passed by the Managing Director of respondents Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam Limited. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were daily wagers at the time when the order in question came to be passed. Though it does not make a happy reading that the majority of the petitioners have been working under the respondent right from the year, 1982 but as daily wagers at no point of time unfortunately they were confirmed on the post and were regularized. Not only this even the Corporation in question has fallen into bad time. It is in this background that the daily wagers have been ordered to be removed. The respondents in the counter affidavit do not deny the fact that the removal had been effected but they have stated that their hands were forced in the matter in the background that the Corporation has no work and has become virtually defunct - 2 - for all practical purposes. They hardly have any fund available for payment of salary even to the regular employees much less engaging the daily wagers and pay them. Petitioners have however tried to dispute this position and have even brought an order dated 7.4.2008 contained in annexure-6 annexed to the supplementary affidavit to show that certain employees are being retained and utilized and the stand of the respondents do not seem to be totally correct. A closer look of annexure-6 would show that those 24 persons are ordered to be engaged in another organization and this is not an order which shows that more employees are engaged or utilized. Not only this unfortunately for the petitioners the law as it stands today based on a Constitution Bench decision rendered in the case of The Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vrs. Uma Devi & Ors. reported in 2006 (2) PLJR 363 this Court finds itself unable to pass any decisive categorical order interfering with the order of removal or directing their regularization. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that even as daily wagers there are outstanding dues for payment. This Court only certifies that even a daily wager has a right to claim his dues for the period he has worked and the steps will have to be taken by the Corporation by making allocation of funds and provision for meeting obligation of the kind since the petitioners are in any way at the brink and at the edge due to removal. - 3 - The Court however taking the humanitarian aspect of the fact into consideration does hope and expect that in case the Corporation does become robust itself again and does acquire necessary funds to carry out its responsibility, then the old experienced hands may be utilized if the occasion for the same arises in future. As far as the right of petitioners are concerned, the Court cannot certify that the same exists in the above given facts and law. In the above background all the three writ applications stand dismissed accordingly. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)