HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 5974 of 2001 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging oral order of termination whereby petitioners' services have been dispensed with on 01.11.2001. Further direction for permitting petitioners to continue on a Class-IV post and for payment of salary in terms of Government Orders dated 22.03.2000 and 12.07.2000 has also been sought. 3. It has been submitted that earlier petitioner was engaged on contract basis with the Panchayat Raj Department vide order dated 22.03.2000 which was extended from time to time but upon oral dispensing of petitioners' services, the present writ petition was filed in which by means of interim order dated 09.11.2001, it was directed that petitioners' post and designation shall not be disturbed. It is submitted that in terms thereof, petitioners have continued in service till date. It is also submitted that while extending contract term of petitioners vide order dated 12.07.2000 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), it has clearly been indicated that petitioners have been employed by the Panchayat Raj Department and it is only their salary/wages which are required to be paid from General Consolidated Fund. 4. It is submitted that in terms of interim protection granted to petitioner, they have continued in service till date despite the petition having been Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Madhu Singh, Purshottam Chaurasia, Suresh Chandra Yadava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Sunder Lal And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P.Through Secy. .....Respondent(s) dismissed in default in the year 2018 and subsequently been restored to its original number. 5. Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners with the submission that petitioners having been engaged only on contractual basis, do not have any right or entitlement to continue on the said post in the same manner. It is submitted that initial engagement of petitioners were on contract basis only till subsistence of work and once that availability ended, petitioners' engagement automatically came to an end. 6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioners were engaged on a contract basis by means of orders issued by the State Government on 22.03.2000 till 30.06.2000 whereafter by means of order dated 12.07.2000, the services were extended till 31.12.2000 with attachment with the Panchayat Raj Department. Thus, it is evident that petitioners had been engaged in service by written orders while specifying the period of contract for which it was being extended. Their attachment with the Panchayat Raj Department was only uptil 31.12.2000 but they were continued in service even thereafter as admitted in paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit and subsequently in terms of interim protection granted by this Court, they have continued in service till date as is admitted in the counter affidavit filed by opposite parties. 7. In view of aforesaid facts that petitioners were engaged in service by written orders while specifying the term of contract, in the considered opinion of this Court, his services could not have been dispensed with only by an oral order. It is also evident that petitioners have been continuing in service ever since October, 1998 as is admitted in the counter affidavit itself filed in the connected Writ-A No. 7895 of 2018. 8. In view thereof, petitioners are definitely entitled for continuance in service till dispensing of their services in accordance with law. 9. Resultantly, writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to continue petitioners in service and to consider their cases for regularization as directed in connected Writ Petition No.7895 of WRIA No. 5974 of 2001 2 2018, Sundar Lal and Another versus State of U.P. and another. 10. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost. September 4, 2025 Satish WRIA No. 5974 of 2001 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench