U. C. SRIVASTAVA, S. H. A. RAZA, JJ.

( 1 ) IN this bunch of writ petitions, the petitioners who are employees of the U. P. Co-operative cane Union Federation Limited, Lucknow and who were initially employed for a period of 90 days, which period was extended from time to time, but ultimately it was not extended and their services were terminated, have approached this Court challenging the orders of termination.

( 2 ) IN Writ Petition No. 2284 of 1988, the petitioners, who are seven in number, were appointed in various months in the year 1985 on different posts, including that of Clerk, Stenotypist etc. In the initial appointment letters which were issued to them, pay scale and dearness allowance was mentioned but it was not mentioned that they are being appointed in a particular and their appointments will subsist so long as the scheme is in force.

( 3 ) IN Writ Petition No. 2310 of 1988, the petitioners were appointed in the same manner; two of them as clerks and the third as peon. In their appointment letters it was mentioned that they were being appointed with the concurrence of the Cane Commissioner under the Rural Construction scheme.

( 4 ) IN Writ Petition No. 2386 of 1988, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were appointed as Godown incharge and petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 were appointed as Chaukidars without any reference to any particular scheme. Their appointments were made in the year 1983.

( 5 ) IN Writ Petition No. 2387 of 1988, the petitioners were appointed as Godown Incharge in the year 1985 and their appointment letters also did not indicate that their appointments were in respect of a particular scheme.

( 6 ) IN Writ Petition No. 2554 of 1988, the two petitioners were appointed as Go-down Incharge in the year. 1983. In their appointment letters also it was not indicated that they were being appointed under a particular scheme. It was mentioned in the appointment letter that their appointments were purely temporary and terminable at any time, but there was no break in the service and they continued to discharge their duties without any break and only in the year 1988 their services were terminated.

( 7 ) IN Writ Petition No. 3145 of 1988, the two petitioners were appointed in the year 1986 on the post of Clerks. The termination order was challenged by means of amendment as earlier the termination order was not served.

( 8 ) THIS Court granted interim order, but as salary was not being paid a Contempt Petition under the Contempt of Courts Act was moved and subsequently the opposite parties started paying salary to the petitioners.

( 9 ) THE petitioners have challenged the termination orders on a variety of grounds. It has been stated by them that the posts on which they are working are permanent in nature and they have been earning increments in pay and certain other benefits which are given to permanent employees accrued to the like allowances and leaves etc. and they were also transferred to certain other places and like any other regular employee they were given work. It has also been stated by them that regular appointments were made subsequent to their appointment and the posts against which they were working are permanent posts and permanent posts are lying vacant still they have not been considered for being regularised though some of the persons similarly situated have been regularised.

( 10 ) IN Writ Petition No. 2310 of 1988 in which reference to a scheme was made, it has been stated, that the Petitioner No. 1 was transferred and he was also getting benefits like other permanent employees. The petitioners have also given names of persons who were appointed subsequent to their appointment but they have been regularised. It has also been stated that there are several persons like the petitioners who were appointed for 20 days and their services are still continuing. The termination orders have also been challenged on the ground that the posts against which the petitioner are working are permanent in nature and the p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document