1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State in this batch of writ applications. The issues involved are common. Counter affidavits have been filed in some of the writ applications and which are sufficient to enable this Court to appropriately consider the stand of the State in the matters.

2. Learned counsel for the parties have no objection to the disposal of this batch of writ applications by the present common order.

3. The facts are being culled out from the pleadings of the parties in C.W.J.C. No. 6183/08 and which are sufficient for delimiting issues of law to be considered. The only differentiating factor is the separate dates of the original daily wage appointment of the petitioners.

4. The petitioner was appointed as a daily rated worker on 1.6.1981 as a Pump Khalasi under the Pubiic Health Engineering Department. On 14.3.1988 he was absorbed in the regular work-charge establishment. His service-book and G.P.F. accounts were also opened with effect from 13.1.1988. Deductions from his salary for deposit in his G.P.F. account also commenced. On 17.6.1996 by a decision of the Divisional Establishment Committee he was brought into th