- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. In all these writ petitions a common question of law is involved and thus all the writ petitions are disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) THE factual gamut of these cases reveal that the petitioners' agricultural land was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. (hereinafter called 'the Act ). On 23. 12. 1968 and declaration under Section 6 was made on 31. 3. 1971. Before making the award, possession of the said land was taken by resorting to the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the Act in 1971-1972. Instead of making an award under Section 11 (1) of the Act, an agreement was arrived at between the parties in the year 1978 under the provisions of Section 11 (2) of the Act. Several Government Orders were issued from time to time i. e. 2. 1. 74, 2. 10. 75, 7. 9. 76, 20. 8. 90, 5. 1. 81 and 2. 9. 87 which provide for giving the employment to persons or dependents of persons whose land is acquired either under the Act or any other law for the time being in force. On 3. 11. 89 an agreement was arrived at between the parties to provide for employment to ten persons in electricity department and five persons in irrigation department under the said Government orders. In pursuance of the said agreement, appointment letters were issued to the petitioners appointing them on daily wages. Their services terminated vide impugned orders dated 22. 9. 90, 24. 9. 90, 1. 10. 90, 6. 10. 90, 10. 10. 90 and 12. 10. 90. The said termination orders have been challenged in the aforesaid writ petitions and this Court vide orders dated 5. 11. 90 and 15. 11. 90 stayed the operation of the said termination orders.
(3.) COUNTER affidavits and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged by the learned counsel for the parties. Heard Shri L. P. Naithani, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Ghildiyal and Shri M. S. Negi for the petitioners and Shri Ranjit Saxena and learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondents and perused the record.;