J.B. Pardiwala, J.

1. Since the issues raised in the above captioned bunch of the writ applications are more or less the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. The following are the observations made by the Supreme Court, speaking through His Lordship Dipak Mishra, J., in a very recent pronouncement in the case of State of Jharkhand and another vs. Harihar Yadav and others [2014 (2) SCC 114]:

"How does a constitutional court respond to a situation when a human problem of great magnitude frescoed on constitutional canvas gets painfully projected with intense sincerity, possibly realizing pain is one of the "sovereign masters of mankind"? How is the Court required to react in law when the workmen are forced to grapple with a colossal predicament of sense of belonging due to a situation created making them feel that they are neither here nor there? We consider it as an unbearable tragedy faced by the unfortunate employees warranting serious attention of this Court, for some employees have breathed their last due to starvation, constant stress being unable to meet the keen demands of appetite, and the impecuniosity that hampered them to avail timely treatment, and some families have been unwillingly driven to a state of unmeaningful survival - an animal existence - sans proper food, sans clothes and sans real shelter."

3. I am confronted with almost a similar situation wherein about more than 700 employees, working in the different departments of the State Government, have complained that they are in the work charged establishment past almost 30 years. Till this date, the authorities concerned have not taken any steps to put them on the temporary establishment. It is complained that as a result of such inaction on the part of the State Government, they have been deprived of the benefits which an employee otherwise derives working on the temporary establishment. Few of the petitioners have complained that although they have been absorbed in the temporary establishment, yet the same was at a very belated stage rather than absorbing them in the temporary establishment on completion of the five years of service in the work charged establishment, according to the policy of the State Government, as laid down in the circular dated 6th August, 1973.

4. It appears that the entire claim put forward by the petitioners to absorb them in the temporary establishment from the work charged establishment is on the basis of the policy of the State Government which was prevailing at a point of time in the form of a resolution dated 6th August, 1973 issued by the Public Works Department. It also appears that before the benefit could be given to the petitioners of the resolution of 1973, the State Government thought fit to cancel the same or rather revoke vide Government Resolution dated 20th August, 2014. Thus, it appears that now, the stance of the State Government is that since the earlier resolution of 1973 has been cancelled, there is no question of giving effect to the same for the purpose of absorbing the work charged employees on the temporary establishment.

5. In such circumstances, the petitioners have more or less prayed for the following reliefs:

"13(A). Your Lordships be pleased to issue an order, direction and/or writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to treat the petitioners on temporary establishment on completion of 5 years of service as workcharge employees and further be pleased to direct the respondents to grant them higher grade on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service from the date the petitioners completed 9 years of service on temp