PRAMOD KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are knit together in that common question of law and facts are involved and with the consent of the parties counsel they were heard together for convenient disposal by a common judgment. Writ petition No. 17836, Pramod Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others shall be the leading file.

(2.) Stated briefly the facts are that the petitioners Pramod Kumar Yadav, Gyanendra Kumar Shukla and Prashat Kumar were appointed Registration Clerk in the office of Sub Registrar, Jhansi in accordance with the provisions contained in the U.P. Registration Department (District Establishment) Ministerial Service Rules, 1978 as it stood prior to its amendment by Registration Department (District Establishment) Ministerial Service(First Amendment) Rules, 1991. Their services were terminated by identically worded separate orders dated June 15, 1991. These writ petitions were filed challenging the orders of termination. The petitions came to be dismissed along with a bunch of other writ petitions filed by adhoc/daily rated Registration Clerks in view of the order passed by the Division Bench in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.582 of 1991, Hasnain Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and Others which was taken to be the leading case among the bunch of the writ petitions filed by adhoc/daily rated Registration Clerks. The matter was taken upto the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition but a Review Petition was filed and it was pointed out on behalf of the petitioners that they were appointed on regular basis and their case was not covered by the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the case of Hasnain Ahmad(supra). The Supreme Court vide its judgment and order dated 26.9.97 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition and remitted the matter back to this Court for consideration. That is how the matter has again came up for disposal.

(3.) I have heard Sri M.D. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri S.N. Upadhyay representing the respondents.