Rizwan Ahmad And Anr vs State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary And Ors

The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.07.2014 whereby and whereunder the services of the petitioners herein has been

terminated with effect from 14.07.2014.

The short facts of the case are that the petitioners are said to have been appointed as Security Guard in the Agriculture Produce Market Committee

(hereinafter to be referred as “A.P.M.C.â€), Bahadurganj, Kishanganj through the security agency, namely, A.K.S.D. Securities Guard Agency in

the year 2006. It is stated in the writ petition that after dissolution of the A.P.M.C., the respondent no. 7 wrote a letter to the respondent no. 5 to

depute employees including the petitioners herein for proper functioning of A.P.M.C. whereafter the petitioners started working with the A.P.M.C.

and were also getting their salary. However, arbitrarily and in a mala fide manner the services of the petitioners were terminated by the respondent

no. 8 by an order dated 21.07.2004, whereby and whereunder it was stated that since an agreement has been entered into by the respondent no. 7

with Mars Mountain Security Services Private Limited, Patna for the purposes of providing Security Guard, no work would be taken from the

petitioners herein, who are the daily wage employees.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4 and 6 to 8 has submitted

that the petitioners herein were engaged as Night Guard/ Security Guard on daily wages and they were discharging duty only on one day in a week,

after dissolution of A.P.M.C. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been paid their daily labour wages regularly for the work performed by

them and after dissolution of the A.P.M.C., they were engaged on daily wage for performing Security Guard duty for one day in a week as stop gap

arrangement since it was necessary to protect the well being of the A.P.M.C. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that

since the State Government has decided to take service from M/s. Mars Mountain Security Services Private Limited, Patna with effect from

14.07.2014, there is no need of engaging Security Guards/Night Guards on daily wage basis.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners were employees of

Security Agency and in that capacity they were working as Security Guards in A.P.M.C., however subsequently upon dissolution of A.P.M.C., the

need arose for engaging Security Guards on a temporary basis by way of stop gap arrangement for carrying on work of A.P.M.C. and protecting its

interest, hence the petitioners were engaged on daily wage basis intermittently. In view of the said admitted fact that the petitioners were working on

daily wage basis and that too intermittently, I am of the view that they cannot claim any protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India.

It is a settled law that the daily wager holds no posts and his engagement commences in the morning and comes to an end in the evening of every day,

hence the same is a contractual deployment on day to day basis. It is up to the employer to allow to continue the employment or disengage the daily

wager at any time in absence of work.

It is equally a well settled law that a daily wager engaged without any appointment order can be terminated without any written order. In the instant

case the petitioners herein being daily wager have merely been informed, by the impugned order dated 21.07.2014, that no work would be taken from

them since no work is available for them in view of the fact that a security agency has already been engaged for providing guards as was being done

earlier. Moreover, the petitioners herein having not been appointed by issuance of any appointment letter, cannot claim as of right to be engaged by the

respondents, even on daily wage basis.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 21.07.2014 whereby the respondents herein have

informed the petitioners that no work shall be taken from them since the Government has entered into an agreement with a security agency to provide

for the guards especially in view of the fact that the daily wagers like the petitioners herein are not appointees in the strict sense of the term

“appointment†and such appointment on daily basis is not an appointment to a post, therefore, the petitioners herein, who are merely daily wagers

do not have any right to insist their employers to grant employment to them.

The writ petition is dismissed.