Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) THESE two writ petitions are connected having been filed by the same person namely Dileep Singh Chhabra. Though in Writ Petition No. 5135 of 2001 there are nine petitioners including Dileep Singh Chhabra, but since issues are common and therefore both these matters have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. Heard Sri O.P. Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, Sri Vivek Rai Singh and Sri Sarvesh Kumar, Advocates, for the respondents and perused the record.
(2.) THE factual matrix in brief, relevant for matter in dispute for proper adjudication may be stated as under: First I take up the facts as are involved in Writ Petition No. 5135(S/S) of 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "first petition"). Here there are nine petitioners before this Court seeking a writ of certiorari quashing option proforma/contract bond of an agreement (Annexure 1 to 8 -A to the writ petition). They have also sought a mandamus commanding respondents to continue petitioners in service with usual pay and salary in like pay scale attached with other existing posts with all attending benefits treating them regularly appointed employees of State Urban Development Agency (hereinafter referred to as "SUDA").
(3.) THE petitioners were initially employed and engaged in U.P. State Mineral Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "UPSMDC"). The petitioners No. 1 to 3 namely Sri Dileep Singh Chhabra, Sudha Kant Mishra and Vijai Kumar were appointed as Assistant Manager (Marketing); petitioner No. 4 Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey was appointed as Superintendent (Marketing); petitioner No. 5 Sri Shashi Dayal Rai was Assistant Manager (Geology); petitioners No. 6, 7, 8 and 9 were appointed as Deputy Manager (Mining), Assistant Manager (Accounts), Assistant Manager (Inventory) and Statistical Officer respectively. It is said that these appointments in UPSMDC were on regular basis and were made between 1979 to 1986. The business of UPSMDC shrinked with passage of time resulting in heavy losses compelling the management to go for retrenchment of the employees due to substantial reduction in work load. All these petitioners were declared "surplus" and efforts were made to provide them alternative appointment.;