- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) SPECIAL Appeal No. 291 of 2000 arises from the order and judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 2-9-1998 dismissing the writ petition of the appellants on the ground that the same has become infructuous. Special Appeal No. 518 of 1998 arises from the order and judgment dated 2-9-1998 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge dismissing the writ petition No. 32935 of 1994 for the reason that the petitioner- appellants did not disclose the factum of filing of earlier writ petition No. 11562 of 1994, and therefore, was guilty of suppression of material facts. On the request from the Counsels for the parties, both the appeals were clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(3.) THE appellants claimed that they were appointed as Daily Wagers in the year 1989 in (Nagar Panchayat) Town Area Committee, Achalda, District Etawah, as Revenue Clerks and since then they are continuing, but their services have been terminated in the year 1999 without giving any benefit of regularization in terms of the Government Order dated 11-10-1989. It is also submitted that the Government Order provides that the persons who are working as daily wagers in the local body, had completed three years service, had worked for 240 days, and, are appointed against the existing vacancy are entitled to be regularized. In view of the aforesaid another Government Order dated 8-1-1992 was issued providing that all daily wagers, who had not completed three years service on 11-10-1989, their services shall not be dispensed with but they would be absorbed against the vacancies arising in future. The learned Counsel for the appellants further submits that as per the aforesaid Government Order dated 8-1-1992 the appellants were not only entitled to continue in service but also entitled for regularisation after completion of three years but the Hon'ble Single Judge has wrongly dismissed the writ petition as having become in fructuous and the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been considered at all. He further submits that the cause of action in the two writ petitions were not identical and therefore, the subsequent writ petition ought not to have been dismissed on the ground of suppression of the facts of filing writ petition No. 11526 of 1994.;