Termination of employment must adhere to principles of natural justice, and decisions affecting rights like pensions cannot be reversed without following due process.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Accountant General are present.

2. The writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs :-

“For issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to revise/refix and pay all the pensionary benefits of the petitioner such as pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. w.e.f. 01.05.2.022, on the basis of the ACP/MACP, Dearness allowance, annual increments and revised scale of pay in the 5th, 6th and 7h pay revision given to him by office order issued vide memo no. 7474 dated 03.12.2022 under the signature of the superintenent, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College Hospital, Bhagalpur. And/or pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Darban on daily basis for three months by the order issued, vide Memo No.645 dated 28.03.1987, under the signature of Superintendent, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College Hospital, Bhagalpur and it was extended from time to time and finally, an order has been issued vide Memo No.1161 dated 29.03.1990 under the signature of Superintendent, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College Hospital, Bhagalpur, by which the services of the petitioner was absorbed along with the others to the post of Darban in the pay-scale of Rs.775-1025 from the date of joining.

4. After absorption, the services of the petitioner was cancelled with retrospective effect from 30.05.1999 on the ground that his appointment was found irregular and the termination order, as contained in Memo No.2611 dated 21.09.1999 was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No.5243 of 2004 before this Hon’ble Court which was heard along with the other writ petitions and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court heard the application of this petitioner along with C.W.J.C. No.6575 of 2009 and its analogous cases and vide order dated 06.10.2009 passed the following order, the relevant extract of which are reproduced hereunder :-

23. I find that almost all the petitioners were confirmed, absorbed and regularized in their service prior to the impugned enquiry, petitioners had earlier challenged their termination orders and thus termination orders were quashed by this Court against which L.P.A. was preferred by the State. The L.P.A. Bench did not set aside the decision of Single Judge whereby termination orders were quashed. Simply a direction was issued to conduct an enquiry; Once a judgment is delivered, its effect can be taken away only by a superior forum and that also, if set aside. Admittedly the judgments delivered in the writ application preferred by the petitioners were not quashed and the direction of this Court to reinstate the petitioners still remained there. I also find that the authorities have wrongly applied the reported decision of Apex Court in Uma Devi's case while considering the nature of appointment of the petitioners. They completely overlooked that petitioners cases are not cases of regularization, but for finding out the genuineness of appointments. Case of regularization of a daily wager or ad-hoc appointee cannot be equated with the case of persons whose appointments have been made permanent. In such cases the parameters as provided in Uma Devi's case cannot have application. This view has been held and affirmed by two Division Bench of this Court in the dec