S.K. Singh, J.@mdashThere are altogether 20 petitioners in this writ application and they seek quashing of letter dated May 15, 1995 contained in Annexure-2 issued by the Executive Engineer, Western Koshi Canal Division, Darbhanga by which a direction was given to terminate the services of 32 daily wage employees including several petitioners, after payment of compensation in . terms of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. A further prayer has been made to take back in service other petitioners not covered by Annexure-2 whose services are admitted to have been similarly terminated. Petitioners have further challenged a policy decision of the Government dated June 18, 1993 contained in Annexure-3 by which it was decided to terminate the services of those daily wage workers working in different undertakings of the State Government who had been appointed after August 1, 1985. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the policy decision contained in Annexure-3 is arbitrary because August 1, 1985 has been arbitrarily chosen as a cut-off date for cancellation of illegal/irregular appointments. In this regard, a perusal of para 1 in Annexure-3 shows that on earlier occasions, directions had been issued regulating appointment of daily wage employees against sanctioned vacant posts and ultimately order was issued not to make such appointments and keeping in view the ban imposed on such appointments August 1, 1985 was treated as a cut-off date whereafter in view of such ban the appointments made on daily wage basis were directed to be treated as illegal and consequently policy decision was taken to cancel such appointments. In my view, the aforesaid policy decision, of the Government suffers from no legal infirmity and no fault can be found with the cut-off date chosen on the basis of ban imposed on such appointments.
2. The next contention on behalf of the petitioners is that some persons similarly appointed and retrenched like the petitioners had moved the Labour Court, Bhagalpur vide Reference Case No. 10 of 1988 and an award dated December 31, 1990 was passed in their favour for appointing those employees on permanent basis and when the said award was challenged before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1175 of 1993 then this Court dismissed the said writ petition on December 21, 1995. On this basis, Article 14 was invoked by the petitioners to plead that they should be treated equally and similar relief should be granted by this Writ Court.
3. Learned counsel for the State referred to paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit to show that the petitioners have been appointed on or after August 1, 1985 and on the basis of paragraph 24 of the counter affidavit, it has been shown that the petitioners in reference case No. 10 of 1988 before the Labour Court, Bhagalpur, were-engaged on daily wages between August 1979 to October 1982. From Annexure-3, it appears that the policy decision of the State was that those who were engaged on daily wage basis and had completed more than 240 days prior to August 1, 1985 should be given weightage for regularising their services. Considering the aforesaid facts, it cannot be said that the petitioners of Reference Case No. 10 of 1988 were similarly situated as the writ petitioners and hence, no relief can be granted to petitioners on the basis of Article 14.
4. On behalf of the petitioners, it was suggested that the cut-off date has been extended to July 31, 1992 by virtue of an agreement contained in Annexure-4. The said agreement in Annexure-4 merely mentions that a recommendation for changing the cut-off date was being sent by the concerned department to the Government and till Government takes a policy decision, no retrenchment would be made. The said decision is dated December 20, 1995, whereas with regard to petitioners a decision had already been taken earlier and even the impugned order contained in Annexure-2 is dated May 15, 1995. Hence, this argument also does not have any substance.
5. Lastly, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that it is well established that for the purposes of retrenchment the principle of ''first come last go'' must be followed. According to para 14 of the writ petition, 37 persons have been named as juniors to the petitioners and are being retained in service as daily wage workers in the Water Resources Department at Patna Secretariat. In reply to this allegation, the respondents have replied in the counter affidavit that establishment of Secretariat is different from field establishments. The cadre at the Secretariat level is separate where the daily wage employees are engaged in the interest of work as per requirement at that place whereas the petitioners were engaged on daily wage basis in a construction work of a project. It has further been averred that daily wage engagement of the petitioners was discontinued due to closure of the on-going construction work of the project, non-adoption of new scheme and shortage of financial resources of the Water Resources Department. In my view, when the petitioners were engaged in a different establishment for work in a scheme/project they cannot claim to be senior to daily wage employees engaged in a different establishment at the Secretariat level which has its own cadre. In such circumstances, in my view, the principle of ''first come last go'' cannot be available to the petitioners for striking down their retrenchment from the work of the scheme/project.
6. In Connection with the aforesaid submission learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon an order of this Court dated August 29, 1995 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2475 of 1995 contained in Annexure-5 and submitted that learned single Judge, in a similar matter relating to Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, directed that while giving effect to policy of ''last come first go'' the authorities concerned will take into consideration the State level seniority of the persons concerned as far as possible. The aforesaid order has been passed in August 1995 whereas the impugned order in this case (Annexure-2) is of May 1995 and hence, it cannot be said that the impugned action is against the law declared or clarified by this Court. Moreover, the expression used is "as far as possible". In case of construction projects, in my view, it may not be possible to take into consideration State level seniority for effecting retrenchment of daily wage employees engaged in a particular construction project. With regard to this issue, learned counsel for the State submitted that in the year 1998 an Act has been enacted and a policy decision by way of a circular issued which provides for a circle cadre under a Junior Engineer for Class III and Class IV posts. In that view of the matter also, any direction as on date to prepare a state-level seniority of retrenched persons belonging to Class III/Class IV will not be proper and appropriate.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the petitioners, who were admittedly daily wage employees and have been retrenched from service in accordance with provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act have failed to demonstrate any legal injury to them or any legal right in them to warrant any interference in the impugned order and action in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly dismissed.
