SADIQ ALI Vs. CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER PADRAUNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. P. Garg, J. In both these writ petitions, the 17 petitioners joined as Class IV employees on different Class IV posts, such as Ward Boys, Sweeper-cum-Choukidars 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. Sadiq Ali and 7 others who are petitioners in Civil Misc. Writ No. 34448 of 1996 prayed for the reliefs, firstly, that the respondents be commanded not to interfere with the performance of their duties on the posts on which they have been appointed and that they may also be directed to pay regular monthly salaries to them along with arrears. During the pen dency of the said writ petition, write services of the aforesaid petitioners along with other Class IV employees, who were recruited and appointed with them, were terminated in pursuance of the order dated 27-3-1997 passed by the State Government and as communicated by orders dated 9/10-4-1997 by the Chief Medical Officer, Padrauna. A notice was also published in Dainik Jagran, a local daily on 13-4-1997 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.

(2.) ANOTHER writ petition No. 15657 of 1997 has been filed by Ram Pratap Singh and 8 others obviously after the order of cancellation of their appointments by the aforesaid Government order. In both the writ petitions now it is prayed that the orders of can celling the appointment of the petitioners issued by the Government as well as communicated by the Chief Medical Officer Padrauna and the notice issued in the Dainik Jagran be quashed and the respondents be directed not to interfere with the performance of duties by the petitioners on the posts on which they were appointed. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed. Since in both the petitions, common questions of facts and law are involved, it is proposed to decide them together.