VIKAS DUBEY Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise from a common order dated 17-7-2014 disposing W.P. (S) No. 1595 of 2013 and W.P. (S) No. 1594 of 2013. They have thus been heard together and are being disposed by a common order. The learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the order dated 9-5-2013 canceling the regularisation of the appellants ordered on 3-2-2005 and 9-2-2005 respectively but restrained recovery of any difference of salary paid to the petitioners. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in W.A. No. 320 of 2014 submits that he was initially appointed on contract on 1-12-2001 as Assistant Grade-III. The appointment was extended at regular intervals till he was appointed as a Data Entry Operator against a vacant sanctioned post on 1-10-2004. Subsequently, he was regularised by order dated 9-2-2005 on the post of Data Entry Operator.

(2.) Likewise, in W.A. No. 321 of 2014 it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that he was appointed as a Data Entry Operator against an Assistant Grade III vacancy on contract by order dated 31-1-2002. It was also extended from time to time till regularisation on 3-2-2005.

(3.) Notice was given to them individually on 20-7-2005 to show cause why their regularisation be not cancelled as it was done contrary to law without following procedures. Both of them preferred separate writ petitions. Status quo was ordered in their favour. Ultimately, the writ petitions were disposed directing the State to consider their reply and till such time they were allowed to continue.