- (1.) The special appeal has arisen from a judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 14 September 2015. While allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents, the learned Single Judge issued a mandamus for reinstatement together with continuity of service and consequential benefits including seniority, increments and payment of revised salary but confined the back wages to the extent of 50%. Aggrieved, the State is in appeal.
(2.) The respondents worked as seasonal collection peons between 1976 and 1981 in the district of Gorakhpur under the revenue department. When their services were discontinued in 1991, a writ petition1 was filed before this Court. An interim order was passed in the writ petition on 10 September 1991. When the petition was finally heard on 11 January 2005, the learned Single Judge recorded the submission that during the pendency of the proceedings, four persons out of 19 had been regularised. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by an order dated 11 January 2005 in the following terms: "The petitioners have challenged the order of termination dated 13.05.1991 and also pray for a direction to the opp. parties treating the petitioner in the service, it is submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition in the service of four petitioners out of 19 have been regularized. In the facts and circumstances it is directed that the opp. parties will also consider the case of the remaining petitioner for regularisation of their services in accordance with the provisions of the Regularisation Rules. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. 11.01.2005"
(3.) Pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge, the District Magistrate by an order dated 29 April 2008 rejected the representation for regularisation on the ground that the maximum age prescribed by the applicable rules was 45 years and in respect of certain persons figures for collection were not of the requisite standard being less than 70%. Once again a writ petition2 was filed to challenge the order of the District Magistrate. While quashing the order of the District Magistrate, the proceedings were remitted for fresh consideration.;