AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Delay of 12 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
I.A. No. 7569 of 2015 for condonation of delay is allowed.
Appellant, Sasaram-Bhabhua Central Cooperative
Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) was respondent Nos. 5 to 7 in C.W.J.C. No. 1615 of 1997 filed by private respondent Nos. 38 to 49, who were the writ petitioners. Writ petitioners, who were working as daily wagers on Class-III and Class-IV posts, had challenged their termination order dated 14.09.1988, which was also assailed in an earlier round of litigation filed by the writ petitioners being C.W.J.C. No. 2272 of 1994, which was disposed of by order dated 18.07.1995 relegating the writ petitioners to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Writ petitioners also assailed the order dated 02.12.1996 by which their claim was rejected by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies in Misc. Case No. 174 of 1995.
Writ petitioners assailed the order of termination on the ground that respondent Nos. 8 to 18 and respondent Nos. 19 to 38 in the writ application were engaged by the Bank on daily wage against Class-III, Class-IV post, but their engagement was regularised and the writ petitioners were terminated, infracting Articles 14, 16 of the Constitution of India. The writ application was allowed on 18.11.2010 along with another analogous case directing the Bank to consider the case of the writ petitioners in the light of the case of respondent Nos. 19 to 38 of the writ application.
The aforesaid order dated 18.11.2010 was challenged by the Bank by filing L.P.A. Nos. 440 of 2011 and 443 of
2011, which was allowed with costs and the matter was remitted back for fresh hearing as the Bank had not filed counter affidavit. Matter was reheard and the order impugned dated 20.07.2015 was passed.
Writ petitioners had averred that respondent Nos. 8 to 18 were engaged as daily wager between the years 1980-81 and were regularised between the years 1983-84. So far as respondent
Nos. 19 to 38 are concerned, it was submitted that they were engaged on daily wage basis between the years 1985-86 and were regularised on 15.01.1988 as they had completed three years of engagement, whereas the writ petitioners, who were also appointed in the years 1986, 1987 and 1988 and their services were terminated because their engagement as daily wager was not legal and were not similarly situated as respondent Nos. 19 to 38. However, the writ petitioners submitted that respondent Nos. 19 to 38 were engaged between the years 1985-86 and had not completed three years of engagement as daily wager in the Bank but were regularised on 15.01.1988, whereas writ petitioners, whose case was similar to that of respondent Nos. 19 to 38, had not been given parity with them, discriminated and terminated.
The learned Single Judge allowed the writ application on the ground of discrimination holding the writ petitioners at par with respondent Nos. 19 to 38. As was the stand of
the Bank in the writ application as in appeal that respondent Nos. 19 to 38 were not similarly situated could not be supported by any substantial material, except bald statement.
Similar persons should be given similar treatment so that uniformity is maintained. This is also envisaged in the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011.
Thus, the order of the learned Single Judge granting parity with respondent Nos. 19 to 38 cannot be faulted. No interference is called for of the order of learned Single Judge. Appeal is dismissed.