(1.) Petitioners have filed writ petition No. 12901 of 2004 for issuing writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the regularization of their services on the post of sweeper in Town Area Bisanda, District Banda (subsequently upgraded as Nagar Panchayat, Bisanda, District Banda). Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60669 of 2005 has been filed questioning the validity of the action taken by respondents by proceeding to make appointment on the post of sweeper on contractual basis and further ceasing petitioners from performing and discharging their duties as sweeper.
(2.) Brief background of the case is that in Town Area Bisanda, District Banda, in the year 1990 there was strike and the attempt on the part of Chairman of the Town Area Committee to get the strike withdrawn failed and as the work was suffering, resolution was passed on 22.10.1990 for dispensing with the services of striking employees, and for making stop gap arrangement in their place for maintaining cleanliness in the aforesaid Town Area. Petitioners were appointed as sweeper on daily wage basis on the strength of resolution dated 22.10.1990 passed by the Town Area Committee. The said resolution was also approved by the District Magistrate, Banda. Petitioners claim that they had been appointed against sanctioned post and they have been continuing to perform and discharge their duties on the post of sweeper since 22.10.1990. Petitioners submit that In terms of the provisions as contained under U.P. Group D Post Daily Wagers Regularization Rules, 2001 and various Government Orders issued in the past for extending benefit of regularization, petitioners were raising their claim for extending benefit of regularization, as they were being perpetuated on daily wage basis. Petitioners claim that their services are liable to be regularized, and for extending the benefit of regularization writ petition No. 12901 of 2004 had been filed , wherein counter affidavit was invited. During the pendency of the aforementioned writ petition, petitioners continued to discharge and perform their duties as sweeper and were paid remuneration till August, 2005. Since September, 2005, petitioners have been restrained from performing and discharging duties, and applications have been invited for making appointments on the post of sweeper on contract basis. At this juncture, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60669 of 2005 has been filed.
(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed, and therein it has been contended that enquiry had been conducted qua appointment of petitioners, and the said appointments have been found to be illegal, as such order, which has been passed on subsequent occasions canceling their appointments and ceasing them from discharging and performing duties is justifiable action and no right, whatsoever, of the petitioner has been infringed, and as the appointment itself was illegal, no advantage or benefit of regularization can be extended to the petitioners. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed disputing the averments mentioned in the counter affidavit and the statement of fact mentioned in the writ petition has been reiterated.