R.P.YADAV, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 8.1.2002, contained in Annexure No. 1, to the writ petition and the oral termination order dated 11.3.2002 and for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to allow the petitioners to continue on the posts on which they were working prior to passing of the impugned order and to pay them salary and allowances as they were being paid earlier.
(2.) IT is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, that petitioners No. 1 and 3, were engaged on daily wages with effect from 1.11.1997 and petitioners No. 2 and 4 were engaged as daily wagers with effect from 1.5.1998. From the date of engagement, they had been working regularly and instead of regularising their services in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Regulation of Appointments) Adhyadesh, 2001, their services have been terminated by the oral order consequent to the order dated 8.1.2002, passed by the Director Agriculture, U.P. (Annexure-1). It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that the petitioners having been in continuous service and 23 vacancies on Class IV post being available in the agriculture department, they were entitled to continue against those posts, which are existing in the department but they have been thrown out of the job for no rhyme or reason. To support of his argument the learned Counsel has cited the following authorities : - In Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd and another v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and another, 1986 (3) SCC 156, which was a case of company where the question of term in contract of employment as also service rules of the company providing for termination of services of permanent employees without assigning reasons on three months' notice or pay in lieu thereof on either side was involved for consideration. The question of meaning of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution and also certain provisions of contract were interpreted and considered. In Delhi Transport Corporation v. D. T. C. Mazdoor Congress and others, 1991 Suppl (1) SCC 600, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the service condition of the employees of public undertakings, statutory corporations or other instrumentalities of State covered by Article 12. The question of principle of natural justice was also considered and it was held that it forms integral part of Article 14 and includes right to fair treatment. However, in both these cases, the question of right of daily wagers was not considered and so these case are of no help in deciding the present case. In Jacob M. Puthuparambil and others v. Kerala Water Authority and others, 1991 (1) Supreme Court Cases 28, the question of regularisation of employees serving for a reasonably long period and having requisite qualifications for the job was considered with reference to preamble and directive principles contained in Part IV of the Constitution.
(3.) IN Dharwad Distt. P. W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association and others v. State of Karantaka and others, 1990 (2) Supreme Court Cases 396 and State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others, 1992 (4) Supreme Court Cases 118, the question of regularisation of casual workers working continuously for a long period under the 'State' and the question of equal pay for equal work was involved.;