1. - These five writ petitions raise common questions of law and so, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of each case are as follows:

(1) Radheshyam's case: (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 907/87).
It has been contended by the petitioner that he was appointed as L.D.C. w.e.f. December 1, 1985, on daily wages basis Rs. 15/- per day and he was allowed to continue till May 4, 1986. Thereafter, he was again appointed as L.D.C. with effect from May 5, 1986 for a period of three months on daily wages basis Rs. 15/-per day and he was allowed to continue up to October 6, 1986. Thereafter, his services were terminated. Again, he was appointed as L.D.C. on daily wages basis Rs. 15/- per day with effect from February 2, 1987 to February 28, 1987 through Employment Exchange vide order Annexure-2 dated January 30, 1987. He has, therefore, contended that he was continuously remained in service with effect from December 1, 1985 to October 6, 1986 without any break.

(2) Vimlesh Sukhwal's case : (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 908/87)
The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed as L.D.C. with effect from July 20, 1985 v