S.C.Mathur, J. - (1.) These seven petitions raise common questions of law and hence they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioners in these seven petitions are aggrieved by the order passed by the Administrator, Town Area Committee, Ikona district Bahraich constituted under Section 5 of the U.P. Town Areas Act, 1914, by which their services were terminated.
(2.) The seven petitioners were appointed Octroi Moharrirs on various dates. By notification dated 21-4-1979 issued by the State Government road tax and transit fee were abolished. The consequence of the abolition of the tax and the fee was that the staff engaged in connection with the realisation of the tax and the fee became surplus and liable to be retrenched. By this notification the State Government provided for retention of the staff. In furtherance of the policy of retention of staff a Government Order was issued on 9-5-1979, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure no. 3 to the writ petition. The Town Area Committee, however, by orders dated 12-12-1979 terminated the services of the petitioners. These orders have been challenged by the petitioners on the ground that the same are arbitrary and have been passed in violation of the Government notification dated 21-4-1979 and Government order dated 9-5-1979. It has been stated in the writ petitions that the State Government had agreed to compensate the Town Area Committee in respect of the expense which it, was required to bear on account of the retention of the incumbents on the post of Octroi Moharrirs inspite of abolition of the road tax and the transit fee. It has also been stated that the State Government actually advanced compensation to the Town Area Committee for recoupment of its loss.
(3.) The petitions have been opposed on behalf of the Town Area Committee. On behalf of the Committee it has been asserted that on the abolition of the road tax and the transit fee, the services of Octroi Moharrirs were no longer required and the pot was abolished. However the petitioners were put on other works but their performance on the said other works was very poor and unsatisfactory and, therefore, their services were terminated. It has also been pointed out in the counter-affidavits, that the amount realised by the petitioners was less than the amount which the Town Area Committee had to pay to them as their wages.;