- (1.) BY the Court.-As there is no objection from the respondents to the application for condonation of delay, being allowed, it is hereby allowed and the period of delay as pointed out by the Registry is, thus, condoned.
(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the pleadings as well as impugned judgment. This Special Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 17.9.2012 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1614 (SS) of 2009 (Promod Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others) whereby the writ petition was allowed with following directions: "The petitioner's case is on same footing as that of Writ Petition No. 5023(SS) of 2001 (Asha Ram and another v. State of U.P. and others), therefore, he is entitled for the benefit of judgment and order dated 28.3.2006 passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ, petition. Therefore, I hereby extend the benefit of judgment and order dated 28.3.2006 passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition to the petitioner of the present writ petition also. In the aforesaid manner, the writ petition is allowed."
(3.) THE brief facts leading to filing of this Special Appeal are that all the respondents (writ-petitioners) were engaged for the Census operations relating to the year 1991. Some of them had worked in the year 1981 and some others in the year 2001. All of them had applied towards the notification issued by the Directorate of Census. After undergoing the selection process, they were duly recruited. On winding up of the Census work, their services were dispensed with.;