D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) In all these cases common questions of law and facts being involved, by consent of parties it was agreed that those may be taken up together. with permission of the Court, counsel for the respondents Mr. V. K. Singh has filed a counter affidavit in writ petition No. 3591 of 1999 which has to be treated as counter affidavit to all the other writ petitions. There is no dispute with regard to the facts made out in the writ petition, Mr. V. M. Zaidi, learned counsel addressed the Court on behalf of the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 8566 of 1999, 8911 of 1999, 18395 of 1999 and 18775 of 1999. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shukla counsel for the petitioner addressed the Court on behalf of the petitioners in writ petition Nos. 5726 of 1999, 8564 of 1999, 8566 of 1999 and 14372 of 1999. Mr. I. R. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner addressed the Court on behalf of the petitioner in writ petition No. 3591 of 1999 Mr. V. K. Singh, learned counsel represented the respondents in all these cases and had addressed the Court. The matter was taken up for hearing on successive dates and the hearing was concluded on 14th July, 1999 and the matter has been placed for orders today.
(2.) The main question that requires determination by the Court is as to whether the order of reversion passed by the respondents in respect of each of these petitions on respective dates are legal and valid and can be sustained. The facts of each case are almost identical. It is contended by each of the petitioners that they were appointed as regular scalers after having qualified for being so appointed according to U.P. Forest Corporation General Service Regulations on the respective dates. The order of reversion therefore, cannot be sustained. The particulars of the respective dates on which each of these petitioners were initially appointed in the department and were appointed as daily labour scalers (hereinafter referred to as the D.L. Sealers) show that apart from minor discrepancies in the dates and the posts in which initial appointments were made virtually each of the case of the petitioners is identical.
(3.) Some of the employees of the department had filed writ petitions in the Lucknow Bench in respect of various grievances confined to those persons. All these cases were grouped together and were disposed of by one single Judgment by the learned Single Judge of the Lucknow Bench of this Court. The leading case in the Lucknow Bench was Van Nigam Karmachari Kalyan Sangh, U.P. Gorakhpur v. U.P. Forest Corporation and Ors., Writ Petition No. 4209 of 1988 has since been disposed of on 12th July, 1994 ultimately. In the said judgment, the petitioners involved the different cases grouped together were categorised and a general order was passed for fixing region wise seniority of scalers both daily labour and regular according to the direction given in the said judgment and refixing the seniority in the light of the direction given therein. However, while fixing such seniority afresh and carrying out the terms of the direction contained in the said judgment, the department was granted liberty even to revert regular scalers of D. L. Sealers after however, giving notice to the incumbent. It is alleged that such notices were issued to each of these petitioners including all other similarly situated candidates and thereafter, the order of reversion was issued as pointed out above. These orders of reversion have since been challenged in each of these petitions.;