Bharati Sapru, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners Ms. Sunita Agarwal, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 2 to 7 and Sri V. K. Singh appearing on behalf of respondents No. 8 to 18.
(2.) THERE are five petitioners in the present petition who have challenged the orders dated 1.1.1998 and 8.6.1999 passed by the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. Lucknow and consequent order passed by the Superintendenting Engineer, Gorakhpur Circle, P.W.D. on 31.8.1999 and the last order dated 8.9.2006 passed by the Superintendenting Engineer, Gorakhpur Circle, P.W.D., Gorakhpur. By the orders dated 1.1.1998, 8.6.1999 and 31.8.1999, respondents No. 8 to 18 who were work charged cleaners were promoted as work charged drivers. By the order dated 8.9.2006, respondents No. 8 to 18 who were working as work charged drivers have been regularized to the post of regular drivers. The facts of the case are that the petitioners No. 1 to 5 were appointed as regular cleaners in the regular establishment of the Public Works Department, Gorakhpur. The date of the regular appointments are given below : (1) Rajendra Prasad 1.3.1970 (2) Chanman 1.4.1990 (3) Shambhoo Sharan 1.3.1980 Pandey (4) Mattan 1.3.1971 (5) Madan Mohan Lal 1.3.1971
(3.) OTHER than the regular establishment, the Public Works Department, Gorakhpur also has a work charged establishment. The respondents No. 8 to 18 who were working as work charged cleaners and were being paid fixed salary in lump sum Rs. 1,800 per month. The status of respondents No. 8 to 18 was clearly that of work charged employees. The petitioners who are working as cleaners contend that although they have been appointed as cleaners but all the petitioners No. 1 to 5 had requisite qualifications to hold the post of driver. They all had in their possession driving licences to drive heavy vehicles such as road roller and those licences had been issued to them by the competent Road Transport Authority.;