STATE OF U P Vs. RAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Neeraj Chaurasia, learned counsel for the respondents. Admit. Notice on behalf of respondents has been accepted by Shri Neeraj Chaurasia. The only short question involved is as to whether the respondents were engaged for working in a project or they were otherwise engaged in the department as muster roll employees and that according to the respondents have worked continuously for the period more than ten years having been engaged in 1988, whereas the counsel for the appellants says that they worked upto July, 1995 and not thereafter. We also find that learned Single Judge has allowed writ petition of the respondents mainly on the ground (1) that there is no written order of termination and an oral order could not have been passed for the purpose and (2) that despite the direction issued by the superior authority the present respondents were ousted from service though juniors to the respondents are engaged. Prima facie we are satisfied that the daily wagers like the respondents, who were not issued any written appointment order and they were engaged orally, they can be asked not to come from the next date by oral information. The learned Single Judge has also imposed exemplary cost upon the officer but without giving any opportunity. We, under the circumstances, stay the operation of the order passed by learned Single Judge dated 25.2.2009 till the next date of listing. List this appeal for hearing on 18.5.2009, on which date the relevant record shall be produced to show the nature of engagement of the respondents in the department.