JUDGMENT :

Anil Kumar Upman, J.

1. Heard.

2. Challenge in this writ petition is against the judgment dated 12.07.2022 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') vide which, Original Applications ('OAs') filed by the petitioners assailing their verbal termination orders dated 30.06.1992/01.07.1992 were dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal has committed grave error of facts and law in rejecting the claim of the petitioners. He further submits that the action of the respondent employer was malafide as the advertisement dated 23.03.1991 was issued for recruitment on different posts for short term on sanctioned posts and it cannot be considered as contractual employment. He further submits that before terminating services of the petitioners, no prior notice was served upon the petitioners. The petitioners had worked more than 240 days in twelve preceding calendar months. He further submits that the posts were available upto 31.12.1993 and thus, termination of services of the petitioners prior to 31.12.1993 is illegal. He placed reliance on the following judgments:

1. Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation , 2010 CDR 401 (SC)

2. H.P. Housing Board v. Om Pal & Ors. AIR 1997 SC 2685

3. Rashtriya Chaturth Shreni Railway Majdoor Congress (INTUC) v. UOI & Ors. AIR 1997 SC 3492

4. K. Anbazhagan & Anr. v. Registrar General High Court of Madras & Anr. AIR 2018 SC 3803

4. The case in hand has chequered history. In pursuance of advertisement dated 23.03.1991, the petitioners were appointed for census work by the Director, Census, Rajasthan, Jaipur on consolidated salary. They served in the Department from the month of July, 1991/September, 1991 upto June, 1992. Their services were terminated by verbal orders dated 30.06.1992/01.07.1992 without giving any prior notice to them. This is the third round of litigation as firstly in the year 1992 itself, the aforesaid verbal termination orders were assailed by way of filing writ petition No. 4295/1992. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 09.05.1997 and the petitioners were allowed to avail alternative remedy. In pursuance of the liberty so granted by the learned Single Bench, an industrial dispute was raised by the petitioners on which a reference was made to the learned Labour Court. Statement of claim was submitted by the petitioners before the learned Labour Court which was replied by the respondent Department and after taking evidence of both the sides, the reference was answered negative vide award dated 21.11.2012. Learned Labour Court, while rejecting the claim of the petitioners, held that appointment of the petitioners were contractual in nature and their services automatically got terminated at the end of the contract period. The said award was assailed by the petitioners by way of filing writ petitions and all these writ petitions were also dismissed vide common order dated 19.07.2017 by holding that there exists a contract in between the petitioners and the Department and under that contract, they had worked upto June, 1992. It was further held that perusal of the contract goes to show that appointment of the petitioners was for a fixed term basis under the contract and after the period of contract, their services were dispensed with. It was also considered while rejecting the writ petitions that posts which were available upto 31.12.1993 were related to the posts of permanent nature and which were continued upto 31.12.1993 and thereafter, such posts were als