- (1.) HEARD Shri Pankaj Rai, Standing Counsel for the Appellants and Shri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Manish Goyal, Advocate for respondents in both the Special Appeals.
(2.) SPECIAL Appeal No. 704 of 2005 has been filed by the State against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 25. 5. 2005 allowing the writ petition No. 14876 of 2005 while SPECIAL Appeal No. 1026 of 2008 filed by the State is directed against the judgment and order dated 17. 7. 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petition No. 4145 of 2008, Smt. Usha Pandey and others v. State of U. P. and others. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, both the Special Appeals are being finally decided today without calling for any further affidavits. Facts in brief relevant for deciding these Appeals are as follows: Upto the year 1999 there were as many as 42 persons employed as daily wage Class III employees in the office of Advocate General and Govemment Advocate at Allahabad. Their services were brought to an end under an order of the Advocate General dated 23. 2. 2005. 23 such daily wagers (hereinafter referred to as 'p' employees) filed Writ Petition No. 14876 of 2005 before this Court challeng ing the order dated 23. 2. 2005. Learned Single Judge vide order dated 25. 5. 2005 allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 23. 2. 2005 passed by the Advocate General. In compliance to the judgment of learned Single Judge, 23 writ petitioners were allowed to continue but were paid wages @ Rs. 47. 50 per day i. e. the wages, they were getting at the time of their dis-engagement.
(3.) 17 of the remaining daily wagers (hereinafter referred to as 'a' employees) who did not challenge the order of the Advocate General dated 23. 2. 2005 were allowed to continue on contract basis and were initially paid fixed emoluments of Rs. 5. 000/ -. These 'a daily wagers have subsequently been given the nomencla ture of ad hoc employees and are being paid salary in the pay scale applicable. In these set of circumstances 'p' employees approached this Court by means of second writ petition No. 4145 of 2008 alleging that an hostile discrimi nation qua payment of emoluments is being practiced by the office of the Advo cate General between 'p1 employees and 'a employees. It was stated that both sets of employees who were similarly engaged and were discharging similar du ties in the office of the Advocate General since the year 1999 as daily wagers, are being treated differently only because the 'p' employees had chosen to challenge the order of Advocate General dated 23. 2. 2005 by which their services were ter minated, while the 'a employees who did not challenge the order dated 23. 2. 2005 were offered engagement on contract basis and subsequently treated as ad hoc employees only because of their closeness to the persons who did matter.;