SADIQ ALI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two special appeals have been filed by the appellant-writ petitioners against a common judgment and order dated 22.1.1998 passed by the learned single Judge whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants-writ petitioners have been dismissed.

(2.) We have heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri P.N. Ojha on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioners in both the special appeals and Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

(3.) Briefly stated facts giving rise to the present special appeals are that the appellant-writ petitioners joined as class IV employees on different class IV posts, such as ward boys, sweeper-cum-chaukidars and chaukidar-cum-sweepers at the places of their posting in the month of June, 1996 in pursuance of the different orders of appointment dated 7.6.1996 passed by Dr. Yashpal Singh. the then Chief Medical Officer, Padrauna, now Kushinagar. When they were not getting their salary. Sadiq Ali and 7 others filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34448 of 1996 seeking writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the performance of their duties on the posts on which they have been appointed, and the respondents be directed to pay regular monthly salaries to them along with arrears. During the pendency of the writ petition, their appointments were cancelled vide order dated 27.3.1997 passed by the State Government as communicated by orders dated 9/10.4.1997 by the Chief Medical Officer, Padrauna. A notice was also published in Dainik Jagran on 13.4.1997 to the effect that the services of all the class IV employees who were appointed in pursuance of the appointment letters, signed and issued by Dr. Yashpal Singh, the then Chief Medical Officer, shall stand cancelled. Ram Pratap Singh and 8 others filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15657 of 1997, challenging the order of cancellation of their appointments. In the earlier writ petition also, the cancellation of the appointment of the writ petitioners-therein, had been challenged.