VINOD SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions raise similar controversy being based almost on identical facts and as such they are being decided together.

(2.) The petitioners in writ petition No. 15505 of 1993 are eight in numbers and they have challenged their termination order dated October 13, 1992 passed by the respondents 4 and 5. They have sought a mandamus commanding the respondents not to discontinue their services as chowkidars at Pantoon Bridge, Balua Ghat, District Varanasi and to regularise their services as regular chowkidars. Their case is that they were appointed as regular chowkidars on daily wages by the order of respondent No. 3 against permanent and substantive vacancies on May 1, 1990. There is a Pantoon Bridge at Balua Ghat, District Varanasi constructed under the supervision and guidance of respondent No. 3. There is no permanent Bridge at Balua Chat and as such after the closure of rainy season the Pantoon Bridge is constructed and supervised by the respondent No. 3 in order to facilitate the conveyance facilities to the residents of the neighbouring villages. When the rainy season begins the Pantoon Bridge is managed, supervised and protected by Mallahs, Chowkidars and Beldars. Though the vacancies at the Pantoon Bridge are permanent and of substantive nature, but the petitioners were appointed as chowkidars on ad hoc basis on daily wages since May 1, 1990 and they continuously worked without any break or interruption for about two and a half years. Their work was also satisfactory. Each of them worked for over 240 days in one calender year. Though vacancies were still existing, they were orally told by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on 13.10.1992 that their services stood terminated.

(3.) The petitioners in connected petition No. 18216 of 1993 are eleven in number and their case is that they had been appointed as Mallahs on daily wages at Pantoon Bridge, Balua Ghat, District Varanasi by order of respondent No. 3 against permanent and substantive vacancies on May 1, 1990. Rest of the contentions are similar to those raised in writ petition No. 15505 of 1993 and the relief sought is also the same.