( 1 ) ). AS facts and legal issues involved in all these petitions are similar, at the request of the learned Advocates, all the petitions are heard together.

( 2 ) ). The petitioners are daily-wagers who were working as Class III and IV workmen under respondent No. 1- Nagarpalika. It is their case that they were appointed as daily-wagers during the period commencing from 1996 to 1999. Initially, at the time of filing of the petitions, it was an apprehension of the petitioners that their services might be termintated without following legal procedure, and therefore, they had prayed that the respondents should be directed not to terminate their services but during the pendency of the petitions, they were relieved, and therefore, the petitions were amended and by virtue of the amendment, it has now been prayed that they should be reinstated in service as daily-wagers.

( 3 ) ). Certain facts are not in dispute. The petitioners were working as dailywagers in different departments of respondent No. 1-Nagarpalika. They were appointed or engaged as daily-wagers without following any legal procedure. Their names had not been received from any employment exchange or they were not appointed after inviting applications in pursuance of public advertisement but because of the administrative exigencies at the relevant time, they were engaged as daily-wagers and they all had worked continuously and every one had worked for more than 240 days in a year. It is also not in dispute that without taking the services of the petitioners, it was not possible for respondent no. 1-Nagarpalika to perform its duties under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred as "the Act" ). It is also not in dispute that the petitioners had been appointed on unsanctioned posts and they were in excess of the set-up of employees sanctioned by respondent No. 3. It is also not in dispute that the set-up was sanctioned by respondent No. 3 in 1961, and in 1961, there was Halvad Gram Panchyat which was subsequently, upon increase in population, converted into Halvad Nagar Panchyat and thereafter it was converted into Halvad Nagarpalika. One can take congnizance of the fact that the area and population of the erstwhile Halvad Gram Panchayat must have been substantially increased since 1961. In the circumstances, it was absolutely necessary to increase the sanctioned strength of each cadre, but it is not in dispute that there is no increase in the strength of the sanctioned set up after 1961 by respondent No. 3 or any other Government authority.

( 4 ) ). It was brought to the notice of respondent No. 3 that respondent No. 1-Nagarpalika had employed several daily-wagers without following the legal procedure, and therefore, a show-cause notice was given to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 3 calling upon it to show-cause as to why appropriate action under the provisions of Sec. 260 of the Act should not be taken against respondent no. 1-Nagarpalika. The said show-cause notice dated 16-9-1999 was replied by respondent No. 1 vide its letter dated 24-9-1999. Respondent No. 1-Nagarpalika had submitted to respondent No. 3 that the set up of respondent No. 1 was sanctioned in 1961, and thereafter, there was much development in the area governed by the erstwhile Halvad Gram Panchyat and several additional facilities were being given to the residents of respondent No. 1 Nagarpalika which were not given by the erstwhile Halvad Gram Panchayat and, therefore, it had become necessary for respondent No. 1-Nagarpalika to appoint daily-wagers to do dayto-day work of the Nagarpalika. It was also absolutely necessary for respondent no. 1 to take services of certain more persons to perform its statutory duties under Sec. 87 of the Act.

( 5 ) ). Reply of respondent No. 1-Nagarpalika was duly considered by respondent no. 3 and ultimately respondent No. 3 directed respondent No. 1 under its order dated 8-9-2000 to terminate the services of 44 daily-wagers whose name