M.C.JAIN, J. - (1.) BOTH these writ petitions raise similar controversy being based almost on identical facts and as such they arc being decided together.
(2.) THE petitioners in writ petition No. 15505 of 1993 are eight in numbers and they have challenged their termination order dated 13-10-1992 passed by the respondents 4 and 5. They have sought a mandamus commanding the respondents not to discontinue their services as chowkidars at Pantoon Bridge, Balua Ghat, District Varanasi and to regularise their services as regular chowkidars. Their case' is that they were appointed as regular chowkidars on daily wages by the order of respondent No. 3 against permanent and substantive vacancies on 1-5-1990. There is a Pantoon Bridge at Balua Ghat, District Varanasi constructed under the supervision and guidance of respondent No. 3. There is no permanent Bridge at Balua Ghat and as such after the closure of rainy session the Pantoon Bridge is constructed and supervised by the respondent No. 3 in order to facilitate the conveyance facilities to the residents of the neighbouring villages. When the rainy season begins the Pantoon Bridge is managed, supervised and protected by Mallahs, Chowkidars and Beldars. Though the vacancies at the Pantoon Bridge permanent and of substantive nature, but the petitioners were appointed as chaukidars on ad hoc basis on daily wages since 1-5-1990 and they continuously worked without any break or interruption for about two and a half years. Their work was also satisfactory. Each of them worked for over 240 days in one calender year. Though vacancies were still existing, they were orally told by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on 13-10-1992 that their services stood terminated. The petitioners in connected petition No. 18216 of 1993 are eleven in number and their case is that they had been appointed as Mallahas on daily wages at Pantoon Bridge, Balua Ghat, District Varanasi by order of respondent No. 3 against permanent and substantive vacancies on 1-5-1990. Rest of the contentions are similar to those raised in writ petition No. 15505 of 1993 and the relief sought is also the same.
(3.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed by the respondents in writ petition No. 15505 of 1993 and the contention of the respondents in short is that the petitioners had been employed as daily wage workers by the respondent in May, 1990 and their employment was terminated in September, 1992. They were employed on muster roll on the availability of extra work when the regular employees were unable to complete the work. They were given fixed emoluments after deducting holidays and as such their employment was purely on daily fixed wages. They have no right to claim regularisation. There is no work available for them as the maintenance of Pantoon Bridge is being looked after properly by the employees available in the department employed earlier to 1-1-1990. There is no vacancy in the department to absorb the petitioners.;