By the Court.—We have heard Shri Shashi Nandan, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Shivam Yadav for New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) through its Chairman-appellant No. 1 and the Chief Executive Officer, Noida, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar-appellant No. 2. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the proforma State respondents. Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava appears for the private respondent No. 1.

2. All these intra Court special appeals under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 are directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 4.9.2013, dismissed by learned Single Judge by a judgment in leading Writ Petition No. 27319 of 2013 dated 21.5.2013.

3. In all the special appeals the petitioners-respondent No. 1 has challenged the orders passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Noida on different dates (in Special Appeal No. 1995 of 2013 arising out of Writ Petition No. 44468 of 2013, the order is dated 27.4.2010) terminating the petitioners’ services on Class-III and Class-IV posts, under the powers vested in him in Section 22 (2) of the Service Rules applicable to the employees of Noida of the year 1981 with three months’ pay in lieu of notice and after considering the reply on the ground that the petitioners on the date of their appointment between 3.5.2002 to 29.8.2003, in five difference phases, were permanent residents of the State of New Delhi and Haryana and were issued the caste certificates belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in those States, for which they were not entitled to the benefit of reservation in appointments. The orders were passed after appointing an Enquiry Commission (Mathur Enquiry Commission), which had found the appointment to be violative of provisions of the U.P. Reservation for (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994, and the Government Orders dated 21.2.1964, 13.12.2001 and 16.4.2007 providing for reservation in the State of U.P. for only those persons, who belong to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and are permanent residents of the State of Uttar Pradesh and have been issued caste certificate from the competent authority in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In their replies they have not denied that they were not residents of the State of U.P. and that their caste certificates were issued to them from outside State of U.P. and thus in view of the Action Committee on issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes v. Union of India, (1994) 5 SCC 244, the benefit of reservation to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is not applicable to them in the State of U.P. as they had migrated for the purposes of employment from the State outside the State of U.P.

4. Learned Single Judge relying on the opinion expressed in Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2012) 8 SCC 430 (para 19) held that the petitioner’s appointment could not be cancelled after such a long period of service on the ground that their castes are not notified as Scheduled Castes or that the caste certificates were not issued to them in the State of U.P. from within the State of U.P. He found that since the petitioners have not claimed salary for the period for which they were out of employment, directed their reinstatement without benefit of salary for the period after their appointments were cancelled and upto the period they were reinstated, and for that period they shall be deemed to be in continuous service for other purposes namely increments and for promotion/retiral benefits.

5. We heard the Special Appeal No. 1370 of 2013, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Piare Lal and another; Special Appeal No. 1371 of 2013, New Okhala Industrial Development Authority v. Dharmendra Kumar and another; Special Appeal No. 1372 of 2013, New Okhala Industrial development Authority v. Rajendra Kumar and another; and Special Appeal No. 1373 of 2013, New Okhala Industrial Development authority v. Kripa Lata Kujar and anot