BANSI LAL Vs. STATE OF H. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both the writ petitions are directed, against, the common employer of both the writ petitioners, and, also when in both the writ petitions, the legality of the denial(s) to them, of, the strived for relief, of, theirs being regularized, from their hitherto capacity, as, daily waged workmen, rather against a substantive post, enjoins making(s), of, an adjudication (i) and, also when the apposite denials, as, meted on affidavit, by the respondents, are, similar in both the writ petitions, thereupon, both the writ petitions are amenable, for, a common verdict hence becoming rendered thereon(s).

(2.) The writ petitioners' contention, as, contained in both the writ petitions, is, hinged upon a bald averment, vis-a-vis, each rendering duties, on a daily waged basis, under, the respondents, (i) and, despite theirs also completing the requisite period, of, qualifying service, for, theirs being regularized against, the apposite substantive post, (ii) rather the respondents proceeding, to, make the apposite impugned Annexures rather wherethrough their services became terminated.

(3.) Moreover, a common averment, is, also borne in both the writ petitions, in as much, as, the employer concerned rather with malafides administering fictional breaks in their service, (a) conspicuously with a clear intention to preclude them, to, render 240 days of continuous service, in each of the calendar years concerned, and, also obviously when concomitant thereto, legal detriments, became visited upon them, inasmuch as (b) thereupon, the canon appertaining to the requisite period of qualifying service, in the, apposite preceding years, hence with a contemplation, vis-a-vis, in each of the preceding years, each of them, completing 240 days, of continuous service, hence becoming rendered untenably unworkable, vis-a-vis, the workmen/petitioners.