- (1.) BOTH these appeals have been preferred against the common order dated 30.1.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 339 of 2009 and W.P.(S) No. 340 of 2009, by which the writ petitions were dismissed and consequently the relief sought by the petitioners -appellants for regularization of their services, stood rejected.
(2.) THE petitioners -appellants had filed the aforesaid writ petitions before the learned Single Judge on the plea that their cases are similar to those whose services had been regularized under a particular scheme floated by the respondent -State. As per the said Scheme, the workmen who had completed 240 days prior to the cut -off date i.e. 1.8.1985 were entitled to be regularized. The petitioners -appellants claimed that they had completed 240 days prior to the cut -off date i.e. 1.8.1985 but the same has been disputed by the respondents contending that the documents relied upon by the appellants have been assailed by the respondent -State and it has been submitted that the petitioners -appellants have not completed 240 days of continuous working period prior to the cut -off date i.e. 1.8.1985 and it is not established from the record that the period of 240 days prior to the cut -off date was a continuous period. Since the contesting parties are disputing the factual aspects as to whether the petitioners -appellants had completed 240 days of continuous period prior to the cut -off date, the same cannot be a subject matter of scrutiny at the stage of appeal. The learned Single Judge has already left the liberty to the petitioners -appellants by observing that if there are vacancies in future, their daim will also be considered without being prejudiced by the order passed by the learned Single Judge. We reiterate the same and grant liberty to the appellants to represent and establish that they had worked continuously for a period of 240 days preceding the cut -cff date i.e. 1.8.1985 and if the same is found to be established, obviously the appellants will be entitled to the relief of regularization. Accordingly, these appeals be treated as disposed of, in the light of the aforesaid observation.;