VINITA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from an order of an Hon'ble Single Judge dated the 6th of September, 2005 whereby the case of the appellant-writ petitioners has been dismissed.

(2.) Before giving my judgment I must make it clear that I was within a hair's breadth of allowing the appeal and granting relief to the writ petitioners, or, at least, referring the matter to a Full Bench. However, I ultimately decided to dismiss the appeal and I do so with the utmost lack of confidence.

(3.) The facts are very simple. The appellants are all daily wagers with the Co-operative Bank, and they were all appointed after 30th June, 1998; they all have appointment letters in their favour; their appointments were all terminable with just a simple notice, like those of employees who are not permanent public employees. Although their wages were calculated on the basis of a daily rate, it was multiplied by 30 or 31, and they were paid not on a daily basis, but on a monthly basis. Their appointment terms specifically mentioned that they were transferable and that they would be entrusted with serious responsibilities including ones which would require financial honesty. On the 24th of March, 2003 a notification was issued by the U.P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board, which would cover persons identically situated as the appellants excepting for one and only one factor, i.e., they had all been appointed before 30th June, 1998.