IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14089 of 2003 JEETENDRA KUMAR, son of Sri. Shyam Nandan Singh, Resident of Dandibagh Road, P.O. Chandchaura, P.S. Civil Lines, Town and District- Gaya. …….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. 4. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 5. The Chief Executive Officer-cum-Administrator, Gaya Municipal Corporation, Gaya. 6. The Gaya Municipal Corporation through its Chief Executive Officer, District-Gaya. …….Respondents. With CWJC No.14186 of 2003 1. PAWAN KUMAR, son of Sri. Gopal Sharan, Resident of Mohalla-Koiri Bari, P.S.-Civil Lines, District-Gaya. 2. MANORANJAN PRASAD SINHA, son of late Chandrika Prasad, Resident of Maranpur P.O.-Chand Choura, P.S.-Civil Lines, District- Gaya. 3. SATYENDRA NARAYAN SINHA, son of Shri. Jamuna Singh, resident of village-Goh, P.S.-Goh, District-Aurangabad. ……Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Urban Development Department, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 4. The Municipal Corporation, through its Chief Executive Officer, Gaya. …….Respondents. With CWJC No.14411 of 2003 1. DHIRAJ KANT, son of Shri Dip Narayan Prasad, resident of village- Kukra, P.S.-Buniyad Ganj, District-Gaya. 2. SHIV DHARI PRASAD, son of late Ganpat Mahto, resident of village- Pater, P.S.-Wajirganj, District-Gaya. 3. ARUN KUMAR YADAV, son of late Baldeo Yadav, resident of village- Maranpur, P.S.-Civil Lines, Gaya, District-Gaya. …….Petitioners 2 Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Urban Development Department, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Patna. 4. The Municipal Corporation, through its Chief Executive Officer, Gaya. ……..Respondents. With CWJC No.11926 of 2004 NAGENDRA KUMAR, son of Sri. Bindeshwar Singh, resident of village- Berthu, P.O.-Suppi, P.S.-Makhdumpur, District-Jehanabad. …….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. 4. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 5. The Chief Executive Officer-cum-Administrator, Gaya Municipal Corporation, Gaya. 6. The Gaya Municipal Corporation through its Chief Executive Officer, District-Gaya. …….Respondents. With CWJC No.12533 of 2004 SANJAY KUMAR, son of Sri. Mohan Sharma, resident of Mohalla- Golbagicha, P.S.-Kotwali, Town and District-Gaya. …..Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. 4. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 5. The Chief Executive Officer-cum-Administrator, Gaya Municipal Corporation, Gaya. 6. The Gaya Municipal Corporation through its Chief Executive Officer at Gaya. ……..Respondents. With CWJC No.5532 of 2005 1. JITENDRA SINGH 2. SUDHIR KUMAR Both sons of Sri. Baljit Ram, resident f Mohalla-Jhilganj Thakurbari Gali, P.O.-Gaya Head Post Office, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Gaya. 3 …….Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 3. The Municipal Corporation, Gaya through its Executive Officer/Administrator, under the Police Station Civil Lines, Town and District-Gaya. 4. The Executive Officer, Administrator, Gaya Municipal Corporation, Gaya under the Police Station Civil Lines, Town and District-Gaya. …….Respondents. With CWJC No.13734 of 2005 SHASHI KUMAR @ SHASHI BHUSHAN, son of Sri. Prahlad Singh, resident of Mohalla-Old Post Office Lane, West Ram Sagar Tank, P.O.- Chandchaura, P.S.-Civil Lines, Town and District-Gaya. ……..Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. 3. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 4. The Chief Executive Officer-cum-Administrator, Gaya Municipal Corporation, Gaya. 5. The Gaya Municipal Corporation through its Chief Executive Officer, District-Gaya. ……Respondents. ----------- 07. 30.07.2009 The petitioners in all these writ petitions were employees of the Gaya Municipal Corporation. They have been terminated by various orders passed in May, 1999 by the Administrator of the Municipal Corporation. The common line which runs through all these termination orders is that pursuant to enquiry report submitted by the District Magistrate, Gaya to the Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar 4 found the appointment of petitioners to be illegal and as such directed the Administrator to terminate the services of the petitioners. It is pursuant to that, to complete formalities the Administrator issued notices to the petitioners and then acted on the dictates of the State Government terminated the services. From the impugned order one thing further is clear that there is absolutely no application of mind by the Administrator. He has mechanically acted upon the directions of the State Government in this regards. Petitioners have relied on two judgments of this Court wherein these very Annexures have been set aside. They are annexed as Annexure-12 series to the first writ application i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 5044 of 1999 which was allowed on 30.03.2000 and C.W.J.C. No. 5837 of 2000 with analogous cases which was allowed on 8th of January, 2003. The writ petitions were allowed and the order of termination quashed on the ground that the exercise of terminating services of an employee is a quasi judicial exercise of power. Such a quasi judicial exercise has to be conducted in consonance with the principle of natural justice. Here it was undisputed that the Authority had acted on the dictates of the State Government. This was disapproved referring to the settled principle 5 in this regards that quasi judicial authority has to act independently on his own and his actions are vitiated if he acts on the dictates of any person. Reliance in this regards may be placed on decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay Versus Gordhandas Bhanji since reported in AIR (39) 1952 SC 16. On behalf of petitioners, it is submitted that as several persons in the same notice have succeeded before this Court the same result should follow so far as petitioners are concerned. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that some writ petitions were subsequently dismissed on grounds of delay. One such order has been appended as Annexure-A being C.W.J.C. No. 8507 of 2003 which was dismissed in limine on 26.08.2003. A reference to this order does not show whether earlier judgments of this Court were brought to the notice of their Lordships whereby writ petitions were allowed and the dismissal order set aside. The dismissal has been merely on the ground of delay. It appears from the order sheet of the first writ petition i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 14089 of 2003 that on the very first occasion this Court had questioned the propriety of opposition of the writ petition on the grounds of delay in view of the fact that the same very 6 notices of termination had been set aside by this Court earlier. Having considered the matter, in my view the writ petition must succeed. Firstly it would be very anomalous if in a situation where, by the same notice large number of people are dismissed, some of them come to this Court and the dismissal orders are set aside and they are reinstated. Some who are waiting in the wings and come later on, their writ petitions are dismissed. This would indeed be an anomalous situation where the same Annexure on the same set of facts and same set of circumstances is valid for someone and invalid for someone other. Normally such a situation should not be permitted. In this connection, I may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar and others versus the State of Bihar and others since reported in A.I.R. 1997 SC 1628 and in particular what their Lordships said in respect of this in paragraph-17 which is quoted hereunder. “……..Nor can we say that benefit can be made available only to 1363 appellants before us as the other employees similarly circumscribed and who might not have approached the High Court or this Court earlier 7 and who may be waiting in the wings would also be entitled to claim similar relief against the State which has to give equal treatment to all of them otherwise it would be held guilty of discriminatory treatment which could not be countenanced under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India…....” In my view, this Court must be consistent in the matter. Once orders have earlier been held to be bad, they can not be then held to be valid and not interferred with subsequently in view of the observations of the Supreme Court as noted above and also in view of maintaining consistency in the matter. All the writ petitions are allowed. Termination orders of the petitioners are thus quashed. However, petitioners would not be entitled to any back wages from the period of termination till the time they are reinstated but that period may be counted for pensionery and other reliefs to give them continuity in services. This would also not preclude the Respondent Corporation from reinitiating the proceedings and passing appropriate orders in accordance with law afresh if so advised. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)