IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.232 of 2011 1. THE BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Udyhog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna-4 through its Managing Director 2. The Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna-4 3. The Secretary, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna-4 4. The Executive Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna-4 .. Respondents.. Appellants Versus 1. ASHOK KUMAR MAHTO, son of Devnandan Prasad Mahto, resident of Brahamsthan, Police Station-K. Nagar, District-Purnea … Petitioner….Respondent 2. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary-cum-Chairman of Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Government of Bihar, Patna .. Respondent… Respondent ----------- 3/- 07.04.2011 The present L.P.A. has been filed by the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 01.10.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 16211 of 2010, whereby the learned Single Judge has quashed the Office order bearing memo No. 4945 dated 30.10.2008 issued by the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, terminating the services of the petitioner-respondent which was contractual in nature and also to quash the Office Order bearing memo No. 369 dated 03.02.2009 of the said Authority as well as the order dated 18.01.2010 of the appellate authority by which the appeal filed by the - 2 - petitioner-respondent herein against the order of termination of contractual service was disallowed. The respondent is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.10.2008 (annexure-2 to the writ petition), which was issued in the light of invoking the provision of Clause 1.6 (b) of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (Financial, service and Technical) Regulation, 2007 terminating the contractual service of the petitioner- respondent herein with effect from 31.10.2008, stating therein, that his service was no longer required by the Authority. Aggrieved by the same the present writ petition has been filed. But, however, the learned Singled Judge has observed that the termination is illegal and accordingly allowed the writ petition. Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the appointment of the petitioner- respondent herein was contractual in nature and therefore the services which was contractual in nature was terminated, - 3 - hence, no illegality could be found in termination the contractual service of the respondent herein. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that respondent’s wife is a cancer patient and she is undergoing treatment in Mahaveer Cancer Hospital. There is lack of fund, with him to treat his wife. But, however, in view of the statement made by learned counsel for the appellant-corporation, to the effect that the appointment of the respondent herein is purely contractual in nature, we are of the opinion that this court cannot interfere with such order of termination, but, however, taking note of the fact that this Court has set aside the Judgment and Order, we are of the view that the payment of salary should be made by the Corporation for the period during which tenure of contract was in existence. The counsel for the respondent herein also sought liberty of this Court to make appropriate representation for any - 4 - employment in the Corporation. We feel that as and when such representation is made, the same will be considered on its own merit without being influenced by the order of this Court passed either by learned Single Judge or by the Division Bench as expeditiously as possible as his wife is suffering from cancer and is under treatment. With the above observation, in the order of the learned Single Judge, is set aside and L.P.A. stands allowed. Ashwini/ (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)