SANJAY MISRA, J. - (1.) MISS Savita Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioners, who are four in number has submitted that the very same controversy which is involved in the present writ petition was also involved in several writ petitions, leading case being Writ Petition Service Single No. 5686 of 1991 (Mohan Lal and Ors. v. U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow and Ors.), wherein this Court has found no illegality in the impugned order whereby the services of the petitioners have been terminated on payment of one month salary but has held that the U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow should given preference to the petitioners while making any fresh selection or appointment for the post of daily wagers or work charge employee or muster role in future vacancy. Therefore, they pray for similar relief in this writ petition by stating that the petitioners services were more than three years and were similarly terminated by the impugned order dated 27.6.1991 collectively filed as Annexure -2 to the writ petition.
(2.) SRI Dhananjay Singh holding brief of Sri I.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents does not dispute the similarity of circumstances of this writ petition with that of the writ petition of Mohan Lal and others referred to above and hence concedes that the petitioners may be given the same order.
(3.) THE order dated 5.11.2009 passed in writ petition of Mohan Lal and Ors. v. U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow and Ors. is quoted hereunder: 1. Heard the parties' counsel. 2. In these bunch of writ petitions common question of law and facts are involved, hence, I proceed to decide the same by present common judgment. 3. Petitioners were engaged as daily wager in the U.P. Jal Nigam sometime in the year 1989 on various dates facing retrenchment of their services in pursuance to decision taken by the Board. U.P. Jal Nigam took a decision and had issued a circular that all the persons appointed after 31.8.1989 shall be retrenched after serving a month notice and payment of salary. Accordingly, in pursuance to decision taken by the Board petitioner's services have been terminated after payment of one month salary. Cut off date fixed by the Jal Nigam has been impugned in the present writ petition. 4. In a recent Judgment reported in : JT 2009 (9) SC 229 A. Manjula Bhashini and Ors. v. The M.D., A.P. Women Coop. Finance Corporation Ltd. their Lordship of Hon'ble Supreme court held that ordinarily fixing of cut of date can not be held arbitrary unless it suffers from want of jurisdiction or violative of certain statutory provisions or constitutional mandate. 5. In the present case, nothing has been brought on record to indicate that cut off date fixed by the Jal Nigam suffers from any illegality or violative of fundamental right available to the petitioner. Initially an interim order was passed by this Court but Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding Special Leave Petition against the said interim order had set aside the same and permitted the Jal Nigam to proceed at its end. 6. In view of above, there appears to be no substantial illegality in the impugned order passed by the Jal Nigam divesting the petitioner from service. However, since the petitioners had discharged duty for about three years, it shall be appropriate for U.P. Jal Nigam to give preference to the petitioners while making any fresh selection or appointment for the post of daily wager or work charge employee or muster roll in future vacancies. Subject to above, writ petition is disposed of finally. No order as to costs. In view of the aforesaid submission and decision dated 5.11.2009, the petitioners are also entitled to the same order. Consequently, this writ petition is finally disposed of in terms of the order dated 5.11.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 5686 of 1991 (Mohan Lal and Ors. v. U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow and Ors.).;