Bachu Thakur vs The State of Bihar and Others

Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.—This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.11.2000 (Annexure-1) whereby one Raj Kumar Bhagat has been directed to take charge of the vehicle bearing registration No. BRF 415 from the Petitioner.

It is the stand of the Petitioner that he was engaged on daily wages as driver of jeep bearing registration No. BRF 415 in the year 1993 but by the impugned order the charge of the said vehicle has been dfrected to be taken over by Raj Kumar Bhagat and the same has resulted into termination of his service.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that before terminating the service of the Petitioner, Respondents were under an obligation to give a show cause notice. I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel. Petitioner, on his own showing, was engaged on daily wages and before disengaging him from service, he is not required to be given a show cause notice. Service of the Petitioner has not been terminated on account of any misconduct but non-availability of work.

Learned Counsel then contends that drivers who were appointed in other blocks later than the Petitioner, have been allowed to continue but the service of the Petitioner has been arbitrarily disengaged. This, according to the learned Counsel, renders the order illegal. I do not find any substance in this submission of the learned Counsel also. As observed earlier, Petitioner was engaged on daily wages and it is not his assertion that the driver appointed later than him in the same block has been retained in service and the Petitioner disengaged. As the Petitioner was engaged on daily wages, in the absence of any work, Respondents had right to disengage him.

I do not find any merit in this application and it is dismissed accordingly.