D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioners have challenged the cessation of their employment by means of the present writ petition and had made the following prayer : (0 to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to declare that the petitioners should continue in service and that the petitioners removal / termination is in violation of Regulation 29 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Services Regulations, 1975 and is void; (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to continue to pay salary to the petitioners month by month onward with arrears on that account of the post of Guard-cum-Peon; (iii) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of writ as may be considered fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and to award costs of this petition, so that Justice be done.
(2.) Mr. A.P. Sahi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that petitioners were given appointment only for 89 days and after short breaks were re-employed for similar period successively and thereby the petitioners have completed more than 240 days continuous service. Therefore, their services could not be ceased as has been sought to be done in the present case. On the other hand, the petitioners are entitled to continue in service and be paid their salaries and that the removal or termination of petitioners are in violation of Regulation 29 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulation, 1975. In support of his contention, he has cited several decisions which shall be referred to shortly hereinafter.
(3.) The contention of Mr. A.P. Sahi is opposed by Mr. V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents. According to Mr. Singh, the petitioners were casual workers and not in whole-time service according to the definition of 'employee' and were appointed pending selection for the post through direct recruitment, by way of stop-gap arrangement in terms of Regulation 5(iii). The appointment of the petitioners were never approved by the Board as is required under Regulation 5(iv). Then again, the appointment was given by the Secretary or the Chairman of the Society who is not the appointing authority within the meaning of definition thereof prescribed in Section 2(iii) read with Section 5(v). Section 29 has no manner of application in a case where a person is not an employee, Regulation 29 applies only of a person is an employee as defined in Section 2(ii). He also relied upon the decision in the case of Director,Institute of Management Development v. (Smt.) Pushpa Srivastava. AIR 1992 SC 2070 in support of his con' ention that the appointment having been limited by time purely on ad hoc and contractual basis, the right to remain in the post comes to an end on the expiry of the period so fixed.;