- (1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 2492 of 1981, 1497, 4297 and 4298 of 1982, as a similar question arises for consideration in all of them. For the purpose of reference, the facts in Civil Writ Petition No. 2492 of 1981 shall be noticed.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts as recited in the Writ Petition are that petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 who were registered with the Employment Exchange at Amritsar were recruited as Draftsmen on ad hoc basis in the service of the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board (hereinafter called the 'Board'). Petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 were appointed as Clerks on ad hoc basis, while petitioners 5 and 6 were appointed as Sectional Officers on ad hoc basis in different Divisions of the Board. The dates of appointment of the petitioners are not relevant for the purpose of the Writ petition. It may, however, be stated that similar letters of appointment were issued to each of the petitioners. One such letter issued to Harbhajan Singh petitioner No. 5 has been attached as Annexure P/l. The main allegation is that the State Government issued executive instructions on Oct. 28, 1980 to the effect that all ad hoc employees who had completed a minimum of one year's service on Sept. 30, 1980 and who were holding the posts carrying pay within the range of Rupees 325/- to 699/- per month, should be regularised. A copy of the said instructions has been attached as Annexure P/2 to the Writ Petition. In consequence of the said instructions, it is stated that the various Officers Incharge of different circles of the Board took steps to make lists of the employees who fell within the purview of the instructions and sent the same to the Superintending Engineers.
(3.) The main and, in fact, the only grievance made on behalf of the petitioners is that on Feb. 22, 1981 the Secretary of the Board wrote to the Superintending Engineer of the Board that the instructions of the Government contained in Annexure P/2 were not applicable to the ad hoc employees of the Board. A copy of the said letter is Annexure P/4. As a result of the above letter, the services of some of the petitioners were terminated while the others awaited the same action in their cases. The Petitioners' claim that the decision of the Board as contained in Annexure P/4 on the basis of which the services of some petitioners had been terminated, was illegal and should be quashed as the impugned letter did not properly interpret and apply the earlier instructions issued by the Government vide Annexure P/2.;