Hari Lal Agrawal, J.

These four writ applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India were heard together as common questions of law and facts are involved in them. All of them are being accordingly disposed of here with. I shall indicate very briefly the facts of the petitioners in each of the writ application.

C.W.J.C. No. 2012 of 1976

2. There are 31 petitioners in this case. All of them were employed as casual labourers (Khalasi) in the Engineering Department of the North Eastern Railway under the Divisional Engineer (I), Samastipur. Their case is that they had worked for more than ten years in any event, had completed more than 120 days of continuous service and thereby were entitled to the rights and privileges provided under various provisions contained in Chapter XXV of the Indian Establishment Manual (to be referred hereinafter simply as the 'Manual'), one of them being the right to acquire the status of 'temporary employee'. The petitioners have stated that the competent authority prepared a panel of 479 employees on or about 26.9.1973 who were found suitable in the screening test of casual labourers substitutes of A.E.N. held on different dates at Samastipur and the names of the petitioners were also included in the said panel. They have appended a chart as Annexure 1' to this application showing the dates of their appointments, the dates on which 120 days were completed and their position in the said panel. After completing 120 days of continuous service, the petitioners made a representation to the Divisional Engineer (I), North Eastern Railway, Samastipur for grant of time scale of pay in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter XXV of the Manual mentioned above and subsequent circulars issued from time to time by the Railway Board.

3. The grievance of the petitioners is that instead of considering their representation and giving them the benefits to which they have become entitled, the administration threatened them with terminating their employment and discontinuing their services on and from 16.9.1976 to make room for the sons and relatives "of the loyal workers". A prayer has, accordingly been made to issue an appropriate writ to the respondents to forbear from terminating the services of the petitioners and to accord them the time scale of pay with the status of quasi-permanent or at legist temporary employees.

4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, although the claim of the petitioners that they had worked for more than ten years was challenged, it was admitted that the petitioners were engaged as casual labourers from time to time and that they had completed 120 days of continuous service but their services had earlier been terminated on different dates in February 1976 due to non-requirement of their service and they were now re-employed since April. 1976. Their stand in the counter-affidavit, however, is that after their termination on 15.2.1976 and consequent break in service, the petitioners further worked as casual labourers in different spells of time as per chart enclosed in Annexure A and did never complete 120 days of continued service which could enable them to have acquired temporary status, Rather, it has been stated there specifically that all the petitioners, except Raman (petitioner no. 13) and Ramautar (petitioner no.31), had completed 120 days on 17.1.1976. With respect to petitioner nos. 13 and 31, it is admitted that petitioner no. 13 completed 120 days on 26.1.1976 and petitioner no. 31 on 21.12.1975. From the above statement, it is apparent that the completion of 120 days of continuous service by each of the petitioners at some point or the other till the termination of their services on 15.8.76 is admitted. But their claim is refute d on the plea that there being a break in their service in February, 1976 and they having not completed 120 days of continuous service thereafter till 15.8.1976, they were not entitled to the st