D.V. Sehgal, J. - (1.) This judgment. will dispose of C.W.Ps. Nos. 4053 and 4360 of 1986 as common question of law is involved in them.
(2.) Vinod Kumar and Ramzan Din petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were working as Clerks on ad hoc basis with the respondents since 17.5.1982 and 18.5.1983 respectively. Their services were, however, terminated on 18.7.1984. They made representations to the respondents for being reinstated in service contending that ad hoc Clerks who had put in less service than the petitioners had been retained while they had been retrenched and thus they had been discriminated against. However, they were not afforded the necessary relief. Similarly, Sukhminder Kaur petitioner in C.W.P. No. 4360 of 1986 was appointed Clerk on ad hoc basis by the respondent on 22.7.1982. Her services were also likewise terminated on 25.5.1984 in spite of the fact that a number of Clerks working on ad hoc basis, and who were junior to her, had been retained in service.
(3.) In both the petitions it has been contended that Joginder Singh and 17 others, who were similarly situated as the petitioners and were in fact juniors to them as ad hoc clerks employed with the respondents and whose services had been terminated retaining ad hoc Clerks having much less length of service in employment filed C.W.P. No. 2367 of 1984 which was allowed by me vide judgment dated 21.5.1986 and the following decision was given:- I, therefore, hold that the termination of the services of the petitioners when persons employed subsequent to their dates of appointment have been retained in service is violative of the rule of equality enshrined in Articles 14 of the Constitution of India. Since, however, their status was that of ad hoc employees, the State Government cannot be burdened with their salaries for the period they have not actually worked, on the posts i.e. from the date of termination of their services till they are reappointed as a consequence of my order. However, if at any subsequent stage, the Government decides to regularise the services of ad hoc employees and the petitioners having not been recruited through the agency of employment exchange are eligible for regularisation of their services, this period of interruption in their service shall be treated as a notional break for calculating the total period of service rendered by them. The petitioners claim relief in the same terms as granted in C.W.P. No. 2367 of 1984.;