Sabina, J. - (1.) VIDE this order, above mentioned petitions would be disposed of as controversy involved in all these cases, is similar.
(2.) FACTS taken from CWP No. 5201 of 1994. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she was appointed as Receptionist -cum -PBX Operator vide order dated 16.4.1985. Petitioner was later regularized with effect from 2.7.1985. Vide impugned order dated 22.10.1992, services of the petitioner were terminated without holding any enquiry. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed vide order dated 10.1.1994.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has submitted that all the petitioners were regular employees of respondent No. 2. However, vide similar impugned termination orders, services of the petitioners were terminated without any enquiry. The termination orders were non -speaking orders. The Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioners on irrelevant considerations and without any material on record. All the appeals were disposed of by the committee by passing one order. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioners were liable to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.;