IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4875 of 2007 Rajendra Kumar s/o Gobardhan Singh resident of Tal Bazar Post Kalpa PS Jehanabad Dist. Jehanabad. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board through its Administrative Officer, Pant Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna 3. The Administrative Officer, Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board,Pant Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna 4. Secretary, Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board Pant Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna 5. Sub-divisional Officer, Jehanabad cum Special Officer, Agriculture Produce Market Jehanabad Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: Mr Pramod Manbansh For the respondent: Mr B.K.Singh Chouhan Marketing Board -------------- 7 30.11.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board(dissolved) hereinafter referred to as the Board as also the counsel for the State of Bihar. 2. Petitioner, who was appointed as a plumber by the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Jehanabad hereinafter referred to as the Committee in terms of the Resolution dated 9.5.1985 as contained in Annexure 1, is aggrieved by the order of the Subdivsisonal Officer, Jehanabad cum Special Officer of the Committee bearing Memo no.22 dated 19.2.2007 (Annexure 4) whereunder the services of the petitioner has been terminated holding him to be a daily wager. Aforesaid order has been passed in compliance of the direction of the Secretary of the Board bearing Memo no.295 dated 12.2.2007, Annexure 5 whereunder the daily wagers serving the Board or the Market committee were directed to be removed . It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner with reference to - 2 - Resolution of the Market committee dated 9.5.1985 (Annexure 1) that the petitioner was appointed as a plumber in the pay scale of Rs 350/- Rs 425/-. Since the date of his appointment until the date of issue of the impugned order, he has been serving the committee to the satisfaction of all concerned in the scale admissible and revised from time to time. At the time of his removal petitioner was getting salary of Rs 2550/- plus dearness allowance admissible thereon. Petitioner being not a daily wager, could not have been removed under orders dated 19.2.2007 (Annexure 4) issued in the light of the instruction contained in Memo dated 12.2.2007 (Annexure 5). 3. Counsel for the Board, however, refuted the aforesaid submission. According to him appointment of the petitioner was made without publishing any advertisement or complying other norms of recruitment and was in teeth of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Secretary of the Committee at the time of the appointment of the petitioner had informed the committee that the salary in the scale of Rs 350/- to Rs 425/- could not be paid to the petitioner until his appointment is approved by the Board but said suggestion of the Secretary was ignored by the committee with direction to pay the petitioner salary in the scale of Rs 350/- to Rs 425/- and to seek post facto approval from the Board. Petitioner, according to the counsel, being a daily wager his engagement was terminated in the light of the provision of the scheme framed by the State Government in view of section 6 of the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market (Repelling Act) 2006 contained in Resolution dated - 3 - 15.3.2007 (Annexure B) to the counter affidavit. Paragraph 3.6 whereof enjoins the Board to remove the daily wagers and in the light of the resolution of the Government the petitioner being a daily wager has been removed under the impugned order. In this connection, it is further pointed out that this Court should not interfere in the matter as the other Benches of this Court under orders dated 30.4.2007 and 6.2.2008 refused to interfere in similar matters and the order dated 30.4.2007 has also been approved by the Division Bench under order dated 24.9.2008 passed in LPA no. 482 of 2008. This Court should also fall in line with the aforesaid orders of this court, I regret not to accept such submission. From perusal of order 9.5.1985 Annexure 1, it is evident that the petitioner was appointed in a scale and was paid salary with dearness allowance throughout for the entire months until he was removed and not the wages for the day(s) of engagement which fact is even admitted in Annexure E to the second supplementary counter affidavit. In the circumstances, there is hardly any difficulty for this Court to conclude that the petitioner is not a daily wager and as such could not have been removed in view of paragraph 3.6 of the scheme Annexure B. The order dated 30.4.2007 and 6.2.2008 of this Court has been passed in the case of daily wagers and has no application to the case of the petitioner. 4. In the result, this writ application is allowed. Impugned order as contained in annexure 4 is quashed with a direction to the Administrator of the Board as also the Sub-divisional Officer, Jehanabad cum Special Officer of the Committee to re-instate the - 4 - petitioner and pay the entire arrears of salary with effect from the date of his termination. shahid (V.N.Sinha,J)