IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17020 of 2009 MD.EHTESHAM ALAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.17021 of 2009 ARUN KUMAR MANDAL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 02.02.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioners were appointed on contract basis as Panchayat Rozgar Sevak on 30.8.2007.Certain complaints were received leading to an enquiry commencing on 18.3.2009, show cause issued on 26.8.2009, reply by the petitioners on 10.10.2009 when the order of termination dated 5.11.2009 came to be issued that they had not shown cause and their services terminated. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon an order of this Court in CWJC No. 16412 of 2009 questioned by another stated to be similarly situated and posted in Araria itself, like the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners likewise did submit their reply but inadvertently before the Deputy Development Commissioner within time and not before the District Magistrate cum District Programme Officer and for which reason the latter has recorded that no reply was filed leading to termination. This Court observed that an explanation had been given though before an inappropriate authority, the minimum punishment permissible may be warning also, the impugned order was directed to be kept in abeyance and the matter remanded to the District Magistrate cum District Programme Officer to pass a reasoned order in terms of the instruction dated 25.5.2009 regulating appointment of the persons like the petitioner on contract. Counsel for the State opposing the present application submitted that it does not appear to have been brought to the attention of the Court hearing CWJC No. 16412/2009 that under Clause V of the Bihar Rural Employment Guarantee and State Rural Employment Guarantee scheme dated 5.10.2006 such appointment was on contract for a period of two years only. The tenure of the petitioners has expired on 30.8.2009 and they have no right thereafter. The delay in the termination order has occasioned due to procedure and does not create any right in the petitioner or extend the tenure of their appointment. It is apparent that certain factual aspects with regard to the nature of the appointment were not brought to the attention of the Court properly in CWJC No. 16412 of 2009. Prima facie it appears that tenure of the petitioners appointment has expired on 30.8.2009. Nonetheless it is the specific case of the petitioners that they have continued even after 30.8.2009 till the impugned order came tobe issued. There is no pleading in the writ application that the contract was renewed after expiry on 30.8.2009. It has therefore become a pure question of fact. If there has been a renewal of the contract the order in CWJC No. 16412 of 20909 shall apply with equal force to the petitioners also. Conversely if there has been no formal order renewing their contract after 30.8.2009 the impugned order dated 5.11.2009 shall require no interference as in that event it shall become purely a case of expiry of the contract period and the order of termination superfluous and academic of no relevance for future.. Let the respondent no. 3 examine the issue of fact in the light of aforesaid discussion and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. This Court based on inconclusive pleadings in the writ application is not persuaded to interfere at this stage. The writ applications stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)