ORDER

1. These appeals raise common questions regarding regularisation as

regular mazdoors of ticca mazdoors engaged on daily-wage basis at the Ahmedabad Branch of Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank"). Civil Appeals Nos. 7406 and 7407 of 1994 arise out of Special Civil Application No. 4669 of 1987 filed in the Gujarat High Court by 35 such ticca mazdoors. The said application was allowed by the learned Single Judge by his judgment dated 13-2-1991, whereby the Bank was directed to regularise the petitioners in that petition as mazdoors in regular employment

of the Bank and to grant them all other benefits flowing from such regularisation with effect from 1-10-1987, the date of the institution of the said petition. The Bank was also directed to pay to the said petitioners all the benefits flowing from such regularisation. The letters patent appeal (LPA No. 99 of 1991) filed by the Bank against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge was disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated 30-11-1993, whereby the date of regularisation was altered from 1-10-1987 to 1-1-1991. Out of 35 petitioners who had moved the High Court, initially 7 ceased to be interested in the matter and, therefore, the directions of the Division Bench were confined to the remaining 28 ticca mazdoors. Civil Appeal No. 7406 of 1994 has been filed by the Bank against the said judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, while Civil Appeal No. 7407 of 1994 has been filed by the 28 petitioners. Two other ticca mazdoors filed a separate petition (Special Civil Application No. 2216 of 1991) in the Gujarat High Court SCCking the same relief as was sought by the ticca mazdoors in Special Civil Application No. 4669 of 1987. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge by his judgment dated 8-12-1993, wherein, following the earlier judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13-2-1991 passed in Special Civil Application No. 4669 of 1987 and the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 99 of 1991, it was directed that the said two employees be also regularised as regular mazdoors with effect from 1-1-1991. The letters patent appeal (LPA No. 289 of 1994) filed by the Bank against the judgment of the learned Single Judge was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated 20-9-1994. Civil Appeal No. 3232 of 1995 has been filed by the Bank against the said judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court while Civil Appeal No. 3189 of 1995 has been filed by the two petitioners against the said judgment.

In the writ petitions, the case of the petitioners who moved the High Court, hereinafter referred to as "the petitioners", is that they had been selected for appointment on the post of regular mazdoors in the Bank and• were placed on the waiting list. Since the posts of regular mazdoors were not available, they were not given employment as regular mazdoors and they have been working as ticca mazdoors on daily-wage basis since 1984. On 24-7-1987, the Bank sent a requisition to the local Employment Exchange. Ahmedabad, to sponsor names for regular appointment on the post of peons and that since posts of peons were available for appointment, they claimed that they were entitled to be given regular employment on the said posts before an outsider could be considered for such appointment. In that context, the petitioners have submitted that the duties that were being discharged by the petitioners as ticca mazdoors were not different from those that were discharged by peons and that many times the petitioners, as ticca mazdoors had performed the duties of peons. The writ petitions were contested by the Bank. The case of the Bank was that there was no vacancy on the post of regular mazdoor and that the post of peons or darwans is different from that of regular mazdoor. It was submitted that a ticca mazdoor was engaged 0 daily-wage basis in a contingency