IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9681 of 2002 CHHABILA SINGH YADAV & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS WITH CWJC No.9765 of 2002 GHANSHYAM NARAYAN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS WITH CWJC No.10464 of 2002 NAGENDRA PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS WITH CWJC No.10726 of 2002 FEKU RAUT Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS WITH CWJC No.10771 of 2002 AMIRKA PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS WITH CWJC No.7640 of 2003 MD.IMTEYAZ AHMAD Versus THE BIHAR RAJYA BEEJ NIGAM LTD & ORS WITH CWJC No.4171 of 2005 RABINDRA DUBEY & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS For the Petitioners:- Mr. Shyam Prasad Mukherjee, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Shanti Pratap , Advocate For the Board:- Mr. Shivaji Pandey, Sr. Advocate For the State:- Mr. G.P.-I. ----------- 07 24.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam 2 Limited. The petitioners were daily wagers in the Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam Limited. There services have been terminated by Annexure-1 dated 18.7.2002. Learned counsel for Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam Limited submits that the Nigam had fallen on bad days, and therefore the termination became imperative. He relies on certain Bench decisions of this Court at Annexures B and B/1 and also a Division Bench order in L.P.A. No. 84 of 2008 declining interference with termination orders on that ground. The precarious nature of engagement a daily wager needs no emphasis. The two Bench decisions of this Court at Annexures- B and B/1 declines interference on the submission of the respondents that the Beej Nigam had fallen on bad days. In both decisions, it was observed that if the Corporation feels the need in future for daily wage appointments it shall be consider the case of the petitioners, apart from the directions to consider the payment of any arrears of daily wages. Before the Division Bench the respondents did not dispute that the Beej Nigam had been 3 revived. It was however, urged that not a single daily wager, who has been dis-engaged, has been re-employed. That the Nigam did not have the necessity for any daily wager. If the Nigam does not propose to appoint any daily wager, this Court shall have no jurisdiction to issue any order with regard to the same. But, if the Beej Nigam after its revival proposes to engage any daily wager, affirming the Bench Decisions at Annexures- B and B/1, this Court directs that such engagement of daily wagers shall be confined and limited, first, only to those who were earlier on daily wage and had been dis- engaged. While making such consideration the Corporation shall have the liberty only to the extent of the physical condition of the daily wager vis-à-vis, the nature of the engagement for which he is proposed. Only after the list of existing daily wagers terminated is exhausted can the Corporation engage fresh daily wagers. At this stage, this Court considers it proper to observe that a daily wage engagement can be made only with regard to a temporary requirement of a limited duration. If the requirement be perennial, the Beej Nigam being a 4 State under Article- 12 of the Constitution of India is required to make regular appointment by open advertisement and proper selection. Insofar as, the submission of lack of funds for payment of arrears of daily wagers the same is not the concern of the petitioners. Now that the Nigam has been revived obviously funds should be available. In any event of the matter paucity of fund is no defence where a constitutional right of the citizen, more particularly Article-23 of the Constitution of India is involved. The Corporation, a Government body cannot be heard to say that it shall take ‘begar’ from the citizen when the constitution prohibits it from doing so. Let any arrears of daily wages be paid to the petitioners if a representation is filed by them after examining the claim within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The writ applications stands disposed off. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)