IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.841 of 2008 ----------- Ramjeet Singh, son of Sri Baleshwar Singh, resident of Village – Chater, P.O. – Baghangawa, District – Bhojpur (Ara) ……………Petitioner / Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Agriculture Production Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam Limited, Krishi Prakshetra Parisar, Mithapur, Patna through its Managing Director 4. The Managing Director, Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam Limited, Krishi Prakshetra Parisar, Mithapur, Patna . 5. The Chief of Finance, Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam Limited, Krishi Prakshetra Parisar, Mithapur, 6. The Regional Manager, Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam Limited, Kudra, District – Kaimur (Bhabhua), ……….. Respondents/Respondents with LPA No.847 of 2008 ------------ Basudeo Prasad, son of Ram Sevak Yadav, Resident of Village – Pacharukhiya, P.S. – Kako, District – Jehanabad ……………Petitioner / Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Agriculture Production Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam Limited, Patna through its Managing Director. 4. The Managing Director, Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam Limited, Krishi Prakshetra Parisar, Mithapur, Patna 5. The Company Secretary, Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam Limited, Krishi Prakshetra Parisar, Mithapur,Patna. 6. The Chief of Finance, Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam Limited, Krishi Prakshetra Parisar, Mithapur, Patna 7. The Regional Manager, Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam Limited, Bodh Gaya, District – Patna ……….. Respondents/Respondents with LPA No.849 of 2008 ------------ Baban Singh, son of Late Brahmdeo Singh, Resident of Village and P.O. – Sinha, P.S. Krishnagarh (Badhara), District – Bhojpur (Ara) ………..Petitioner / Appellant - 2 - Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Agriculture Production Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam Limited, Krishi Prakshetra Parisar, Mithapur, Patna through its Managing Director. 4. The Managing Director, Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam Limited, Krishi Prakshetra Parisar, Mithapur, Patna. 5. The Chief of Finance, Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam Limited, Krishi Prakshetra Parisar, Mithapur. 6. The Regional Manager, Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam Limited, Kudra, District – Kaimur (Bhabhua), ……….. Respondents/Respondents ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Satish Chandra Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent nos. 1 & 2 in L.P.A. No. 841 of 2008 : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, J.C. to S.C. III For the Respondent nos. 1 & 2 in L.P.A. No. 847 of 2008 & L.P.A. No. 849 of 2008 : Mr. Kumar Alok, S.C. XIX For Respondent-Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam Limited : Mr. Shivaji Pandey, Senior Advocate Mr. B.N. Tiwari, Advocate ---------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 7th November, 2008. These three appeals are taken up together for motion hearing as they arise from a common order. 2. The services of the appellants, who are unsuccessful petitioners, came to be dispensed with by the Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam Limited (for short, ‘Beej Nigam’) as the Beej Nigam ceased to have any work and had virtually become non-functional. They did not have - 3 - financial resources to pay the salaries to their employees. That, the petitioners were daily wagers, is not in dispute. It also does not seem to be in dispute that all daily wagers, like the petitioners, were disengaged because of financial constraint and lack of availability of work. 3. Counsel for the appellants submits that the Beej Nigam has now been revived with the financial help provided by the State Government and they have been engaging people from outside. 4. Counsel for the Beej Nigam does not dispute that the Beej Nigam has been revived. He, however, submits that not a single daily wager, who was disengaged, has been reemployed. He would further submit that, as of now, there is no necessity of the daily wagers in the Beej Nigam. 5. Having considered the matter thoughtfully, we are of the view that these three appeals do not deserve to be admitted. They are liable to be dismissed and are dismissed in limine. The Single Judge has already observed that should the Beej Nigam require the employees, experienced hands like the petitioners may be utilized. No further observation is necessary by us. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil