Case: THE STATE OF BIHAR Vs. BALIRAM SINGH

3. The respondents filed a writ petition initially praying for a direction against the appellants to make payment of salary to them for the period from 1 st October, 2001 till 3 rd July, 2007, along with statutory interest. By way of an amendment, a further relief was claimed to issue a writ of mandamus to the appellants to give continuity of past services to the respondents taking into account the period from 1 st October, 2001 till 3 rd July, 2007 for the purpose of making payment of salary to the respondents for the said period. The respondents asserted that they were appointed as Adult Education Supervisors between 1981 and 1987 pursuant to advertisements published between 1979 and 1983. It is stated that 771 posts of Adult Education Supervisor were abolished in terms of the decision of the State Government after adjusting the remaining 367 supervisors who continued to work until the abolition of the posts in the year 1991.These termination orders were challenged by the association of the respondents, namely, the Bihar State Adult andNon-Formal Education EmployeesAssociation, by way of CWJC No.5036 of 1992. That writ petition was disposed of along with connected cases vide judgment dated 24 th May,. Paragraph Nos.36 and 37 of the judgment readThere is no doubt that petitioners? initial appointments were made to a scheme which was purely temporary, therefore, it may not be possible for me to ask the respondent authorities to regularize their services. But I have already noticed that their appointments were made as per the prescribed norms of the Government after proper advertisement etc. I have also noticed that having regard to their past services rendered continuously for ten to fourteen years, the State authorities had themselves absorbed at least 771 of such Supervisors and for rest steps were under contemplation. Petitioners have also been able to establish successfully that the decision of the authorities to cancel such adjustment was not only malafide rather shameful. But now a stand is being taken by the respondents that those 771 posts were also temporary hence a decision was taken to terminate the petitioners. Therefore, in these backgrounds, it would not be proper to quash the order of petitioners? termination.But it cannot be ignored that having regard to the long services rendered by the petitioners, administrativee Bihar State Adult andNon-Formal Education EmployeesAssociation and Ors. Vs.The State of Bihar and Ors. 1996 SCC Online Pat 235;(1996) 2 PLJR 394  authorities had suggested steps for their absorption even in other departments. Therefore, having taken into consideration entire facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of the writ petitions with the following direction to the(a) to allow the petitioners and interveners to continue against these 771 posts, against which they were adjusted in terms of the letter of the concerned department, dated 19 th December, 1990. But such adjustment is to be made as per their seniority or (b) in case those posts have also been abolished, take steps to absorb/adjust the petitioners along with the interveners in a similar manner, the employees of Consolidation Department were adjusted or (c) if for any justified reason condition nos. (a) or (b) are not possible, take a decision similar to the State of Uttar Pradesh, which I have already indicated in paragraph no.18 of this order and adjust/absorb them accordingly. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, I could not persuade myself to quash the impugned order. With the aforesaid directions/observations, these writ applications are, thus, disposed of. But the parties are left to bear their own costs.Consequent to the said decision, the appellants appointed the respondents in theEducation Scheme/Adult Education Scheme vide order dated 15 th March, 1998. The said order readsGovernment of BiharSecondary, Primary and Adult Education Department Office Order Patna, date:15 th March, 98 No.24/Mu.. In the light of orderhe date of 24.5.96 by the Hon?ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C.and other annexed petitions and in the light of orderhe date of 26.11.97 in M.J.C.and 3172/96, against the sanctioned and vacant posts of the Project Officers, under Informal Dist. Public Education Program under Public Education Directorate, to the following service relieved Adult Education Supervisors along with the other allowances payable from time to time by the Government, innt was made. Aforesaid all appointed employees at the time of joining, shall submit necessarily Medical Certificate issued by Civil Surgeon.This appointment shall be deemed fresh appointment, resultantly their earlier services shall not be calculated for their pension,/ promotion/ time bound promotion etc.If by the aforesaid employees, their earlier charges are not handed over, then only after handing over earlier charge, joining shall be made at new posted place.To all aforesaid employees only starting salary ofmentioned in this letter shall be payable immediately.The service of all aforesaid employees shall be under policy and principle of Informal Education Program/Adult Education Program.The service conditions of aforesaid all appointed employees shall be deemed under circulars issued earlier in the context of retrenchment and adjustment by the Personnel Department and Finance Department.On being any kind of alteration in Sl. No. in amended Provisional Seniority List prepared by Public Education Directorate, Bihar, Patna, alteration may be made in the post of employees mentioned in this letter also.If during review by Public Education Directorate, proof is found of arrear or defalcation against any aforesaid employee, then action shall be taken for its recovery. If against any employee serious charges are found or their service is found unsatisfactory, then their service may be terminated.The aforesaid appointed employees shall submit affidavit in the context of their appointment at the time of joining stating therein that, their appointment is made in formal way and as per rule and if in future their appointment is found illegal/irregular, then their service shall be terminated and they shall be liable to punishment.The employee who wason the post of ProjectOfficer, under informal education for the period of three years on the basis of contract earlier in category of Adult Education Supervisor and whose service was extended up to December, 97, his appointment also shall be deemed fresh appointment.Aforesaid all appointed employees shall make joining in Public Education Directorate, Bihar, Patna within one month from date of issuance of this letter, otherwise their appointment shall be terminated., Public, Date:, Bihar,on and, Public, Date:, Patnaon and, Public, Date:Dist. Public Educationr, Informal Education, Public, Date:, Public, Date:, Primary and Adult Educationon and, Public, Date:s supplied)Be it noted that the appointment of the respondents to the post of Project Officer was a fresh appointment. The respondents accepted the said terms and conditions of appointment and none of the respondents challenged the same. The scheme, in respect of which the respondents were appointed, was abolished w.e.f. 1 st April, 2001, as a result of which all of them came to be terminated. The respondents, however, neither challenged the policy decision to abolish the scheme under which the Informal Education Programme Scheme was implemented by the State Government nor their termination order. Indeed, some of the affected persons challenged their order of termination by way of writ petitions. We shall advert to this aspect a little latter.It is indisputable that the State Government took a policy decision on 20 thto adjust all the 1427 retrenched employees. The policy is reflected in the resolution, which readsent of Human Resources Development(Primary and Adult Education) Resolution Patnake other states in State ofInformal Education Programin the form of Central sponsored programe was managed in order to arrange primary education to such children who are aged about 6-14 years and not going to government school for study. Central Government and State Government were bearing the expenses incurred in this programe in specified ratio. The Central Government has taken decision to stopand to regulate the Education Guarantee Program/Objective and Navachari Education Programe with effect from 01.04.2001 for the purpose of this object. Subsequently the following employees for informal Education Program were retrenched with effect from 01.04.2001.Project Officer0 1l 1,427The matter of a adjustment of 1427 retrenched employees under the aforesaid explained in formal education programe was pending before the government. State government has taken decision for adjustment of the retrenched employees against the available vacancies in different departments in the following. The concerned retrenched employee shall besuch post for which he possesses the required prescribed educationalno new post shall be created for him.B. They shall be adjusted for the same salary at which they were retrenched. In case of unavailability of post/vacancy and upon furnishing their written consent, retrenched employees shall also be adjusted at minimum salary.C. The reservation roster shall, necessarily be complied with. The retrenched employees shall be adjusted against the roster point of the same class, they belong to.D. The maximum limit of age shall be exhausted for adjustment.E. In the light recommendation of personnel and administrative reforms department, as per the definition of retrenched employees mentioned in their resolutionPublic Education Director shallprepare, self sufficient panel, in the light of advice of learned counsel,es have been deemed to be retrenched.F. The direct recruitment shall notin series of adjustment in different departments. ThePublic Education Director shallinitiate proceedings to mark the post for the purpose of adjustment in different departments.G. Consent of Bihar Employees Selection Commission is not necessary in filing the marked post through adjustment.H. According to availability of vacancies, the appointments shall be made from such panel time to time through adjustment after obtaining the approval of chief secretary. Chief Secretary must be empowered by the governor or Council of Ministers of State for giving such approval.I. The adjustment of retrenched employees shall be deemed to be a new appointment. They shall not get the benefit of seniority on the basis of their service before being retrenched. But the period of service prior to retrenchment shall be used for pension purpose.J. The retrenched employees whose immediate adjustment is not done due to unavailability of vacancy, after preparing their list they shall be adjusted against vacancy post available in next five years.By the order of Governor of Bihar.Prakash Secretary Primary and Adult Education8. Even this policy makes it amply clear that the adjustment of retrenched employees was to be a new appointment and the employees would not get the benefit of seniority on the basis of their services before being retrenched. However, the period of service prior to retrenchment would be reckoned for pension purposes only. Even this policy has not been challenged by the respondents.The respondents eventually came to be appointed pursuant to the letter dated 16 th March, 2007. The said letter reads06 270/Government of BiharHuman Resource Development Department. Madan Mohan JhaFood and Supply Department,

Reasoning:
14. The appellants would contend that the sole basis on which the High Court granted reliefs to the respondents is tenuous.al matrix involvedthe case of Smt. Ram LaxmiMishra (supra), is inapplicable to the case of the respondents and moreso, unlikethe case of Smt. Ram LaxmiMishra (supra), the respondents not only failed to challenge the termination order passed against them consequent to abolition of the scheme w.e.f. 1 st April, 2001 but also failed to challenge both, the policy of the Stateon dated 20 thnd the terms and conditions of the letter of appointment dated 16 th March, 2007. Having failed to do so, the respondents were not entitled to any relief whatsoever. Besides, the cause of action first arose in 2001, then in May 2005 and again, in March 2007, butthe writ petitionseeking relief offor the stated period came to berespondents, without challenging the termination order or the policy, for the first timeyear 2013. In other words,the writ petitionby the respondentsalso suffered from laches. Itis then contended thatthe case of Smt. Ram LaxmiMishra (supra), the High Court directed reinstatement and, as a consequential relief, ordered payment of back-wages, after setting aside the termination order.In the present case, there is no challenge against the termination order or the terms and conditions specifiedthe appointment letter dated 16 th March,2007, being fresh appointment of the respondents. If it is not a case of reinstatement, the question of grantingfor the stated period would not arise. Moreover, since the respondents had not worked during the relevant period at all, the principle of ‘no work, no pay?y come into play.le Judgethe Division Benchof the High Courtthis aspect at all. The learnedly followed the decision in Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra (supra). What has been completely glossed over by the learnedas well as then the present casehe writ petitionin Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra (supra),was to challenge the order of termination dated 1 st April, 2001, in which the said petitionerng that her initial appointment wasAdult Education Scheme and notal Education Scheme. What weighed with the High Court in that case was that the closure of theEducation Scheme in which the concerned petitioner was working at the relevant time, would not affect her service conditionre of Adult Education Scheme. Notably,in Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra (supra),the petitioner succeededge to her termination order and it came to be set aside with consequential reliefs of reinstatement and monetary benefits, which includedfor the relevant period.however, the respondents have neither challenged the termination order after closure of theEducation Scheme w.e.f. 1 st April, 2001 nor the policy dated 20 ther which they have beenor the appointmentletter dated 16 th March, 2007.the appointment letter dated 16 th March,2007 unambiguously predicates that the appointment was a fresh appointment and the past services would bey for the purpose of grant ofng more. Indisputably, the respondents acted upon such terms and conditions of appointment without any demurrer. They chose to file the subject writ petition onlyyear 2013, when the cause of action first arose on 1 st April, 2001, then on 20 thnd once again, on 16 th March, 2007. Unless the respondents are to be reinstatedr previous post (held prior to 1 st April, 2001), the question of awarding back-wages would not arise at all. The relief ofis and can bey to the order of reinstatement. It cannot beon or, for that matter, during the period when the respondents were not in employment at all.A fortiori, we have no hesitation in taking the view thatby the respondentsfor the stated reliefs is devoid of merits for more than one reason. First, it suffers from laches since it came to beyear 2013. Second, there is no challenge to the termination w.e.f. 1 st April, 2001g the policy dated 20 th, or to the terms and conditions of appointmentletter dated 16 th March, 2007.No order of reinstatement could beur of the respondents and sans such an order, the respondents cannot be bestowed withfor the period during which they were notnt of the appellants and also because they did not work during that period. Third, the scheme in respect of which the respondents werery basis was closed w.e.f. 1 st April, 2001.No order of reinstatement could bemade much less offor the period subsequent thereto and until the engagement of the respondents on 16 th March, 2007 in a new post. If the scheme in which they were employed has been abolished, by no stretch of imagination can the court direct payment ofwages for the period after abolition of the scheme w.e.f. 1 st April, 2001. Fourth, the principle of ‘no work, no pay? would disentitle the respondents from the relief ofFifth, the decisionin Smt. Ram Laxmi Mishra (supra),is distinguishable on facts and, in any case,f wrongly granted to the petitioner therein cannot be the basis to grant similar relief to the respondents herein, which is not in conformity with the extant regulations or policy, the dismissal of Special Leave Petition of the State by this Court in that case notwithstanding. Lastly, the principle underlying the decision of this Court in State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Arun Kumar (supra), would apply proprio vigore to the case of the respondents.For the reasons already recorded, the argument under consideration does not commend to us. As mentioned earlier,l position statedns in which relief has1991 Supp. (2) SCC 421been given to the petitionersed petitions is distinguishable. More importantly, in those petitions, order of termination was the subject matter of the challenge and, having set aside the impugned termination, the court granted consequential relief of reinstatement withto the concerned petitioner(s). The respondents herein, however, for reasons best known to them, did not challenge the order of termination which event had occurred w.e.f. 1 st April, 2001 consequent to abolition of the scheme in which they were employed. Taking an overall view of the matter, therefore, the respondents are not entitled to the reliefs as claimed, having acted upon the terms and conditions upon which they came to be engaged vide appointmentletter dated 16 th March, 2007.