The past period of service on daily wage basis should be considered as continuous service for the purpose of earning pension, based on the provisions of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976.

J.N.Bhatt, J.

1. By invocation of Constitutional writ remedied under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners in this group of 18 petitions who have been working as Class III and IV employees in the employment of the respondent University, namely, Lalit Narayan Mithila University have assailed the office order contained in memo No. 3879-3982/01 issued by the Registrar of the respondent University, on 28.2.2001, whereby, the services of the employees working on daily wage-basis in different departments and different colleges affiliated to the respondent Lalit Narayan Mithila University came to be discharged with effect from 1.3.2001, inter alia, contending that such an order dispensing with the services of the petitioners is illegal, unjust, unfair service practice and contrary to the resolution of the Syndicate dated 13.7.1985, Since there is a common question involved in these petitions they are being disposed of by this common order as they have been heard together.

2. The petitioners have been working on the basis of daily wages since long on Class III and IV posts in the University or different departments or different affiliated colleges. Some of them have been working since 1979 and some of them have been working since 1985, continuously, uninterruptedly and doing the same work as Class III and IV servants are required to perform. Most of the petitioners, thus, are working for more than 15 years and some of them, also, have completed more than 20 years. All of them came to be discharged, en bloc, irrespective of the period of work they have put in, by one order of the Registrar of the University by passing an office order as stated herein above on 28.2.2001.

3. Subsequently, the University took a decision to regularise most of the employees except four out of the petitioners in these 18 petitions by virtue of a notification dated 6.6.2004 and since then they have been regularly working as regularised employees. Out of the 18 petitions, in the following petitions the petitioners are not regularised:

(1) In C.W.J.C. No. 3328 of 2001 petitioner No. 13, namely, Satya Narayan Yadav,

(2) in C.W.J.C. No. 3584 of 2001 petitioner No. 6, Bablu Kumar Mistri;

(3) in C.W.J.C. No. 10845 of 2001 petitioner Nos. 12 and 13, namely, Saiyad Ali Khan and Reyaz Ahmad respectively.

4. These four persons are not regularised. No counter affidavit has been filed by the University. These four persons are also similarly situated employees. Therefore, they are required to be directed to be considered for regularisation in terms of the notification applied to other petitioners.

5. The Registrar of the respondent Lalit Narayan Mithila University has filed a counter affidavit in C.W.J.C. No. 3274 of 2001, wherein, it has been inter-alia contended that the petitioners came to be appointed initially on daily wage basis by the Principals of the Colleges and their names were not recommended by the Employment Exchange or their appointments were not regular. It is, therefore, the case of the respondent University that the appointment of the petitioners by the Principals of different Colleges was not legal and valid. It is, also, the case of the University that some of the petitioners similarly situated had filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 4252 of 1995, for regularisation of their services, wherein, this Court had directed that the vacant posts should be filled up by the procedure consistent with the law. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction the respondent University undertaken the exercise required for filling up the vacant posts of Class III and IV on 27.2.1997 and 24.3.1997. The petitioners had also applied for the post and they were given an opportunity in the interview. Thus, the selection of the employees was made by the University which was sent for the approval as required under Sec. 35(2) of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976. However, no approval came to be received from the State Government as a result of which on being