- (1.) HEARD Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.K. Singh, learned for the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioners herein were appointed as ad hoc class -IV employees in the year 2010 under the scheme of Fast Track Courts. The scheme itself was for a short duration, which was extended from time to time, lastly upto 31.03.2011. Consequent to the refusal of the Union of India to provide requisite financial assistance for the scheme beyond 31.03.2011, the State Government created ex -cadre posts. The ad -hoc employees of the Fast Track Courts were allowed to continue on ad hoc basis against such posts. Pursuant to the order of the State Government dated 31.03.2011 creating the aforesaid ex -cadre post and providing for absorption of the same in the regular cadre as and when vacancy arose and pursuant to a letter dated 01.04.2011 of the High Court of Allahabad, the District Judge absorbed/ regularised the services of the petitioners in the regular cadre of his judgship. Subsequently, the High Court issued directions to the District Judge on 30.08.2014 for revisiting of the order of the regularisation/ absorption as the same was in violation of the dictum of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnatka and others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and others, 2006 4 SCC 1. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners, thereafter the impugned orders have been passed whereby the regularisation orders of the petitioners have been withdrawn and the status of the petitioners as ad hoc employees has been continued.
(3.) BEING aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. A writ petition bearing Writ -A No.52637 of 2014 involving similar facts and similar issues was heard on 25.09.2014 and judgment was reserved and the said writ petition has been dismissed and it has been held that the ad hoc employees of the Fast Track Courts were not entitled to regularisation/ absorption of their services, however the respondents may consider their cases in the light of the directions/ observations contained in paragraph -207.9 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Brij Mohan Lal Vs. Union of India, 2012 6 SCC 502, subject to certain considerations.;