Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) SHRI S.N. Kumawat, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notices on behalf of Respondents, hence service is complete.
(2.) WITH consent of both parties, writ petition is heard and being decided by this order. This writ petition has been filed by Petitioner assailing order dated 20.02.2009 and consequent order dated 08.04.2009.
(3.) COUNSEL for Petitioners submits that controversy raised in instant petition was initially examined and decided by learned Single Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4119/2009 - Ramjeet Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., and other identical petitions decided on 30.06.2009 and in Para 7 and 8 of the judgment the court observed as under: I have gone through the record of writ petitions and considered the rival submissions of the parties. In my view, the letter dated 19.01.2009 clearly reveals that the revised scheme is to be implemented instead of old scheme, hence, mere change of the scheme will not result in unemployment and fresh selection. However, the Petitioners cannot claim the wages of the intervening period on account of non allotment of the budget. The action of the Respondents envisages the impugned orders of termination of the present Petitioner is declared illegal and the Petitioners are allowed to continue on their respective posts till the scheme of "Lok Talim" is implemented. However, they will be entitled for continuity in service but not entitled to fixed remuneration for the intervening period in case the scheme of "Lok Talim" is implemented.;