IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. (SS) 729 of 2011 Ayodhya Prasad Bahuguna and others …Petitioners Versus Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. ….Respondent With Writ Petition No. (SS) 522 of 2011 Smt. Anita Negi and others …Petitioners Versus Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. ….Respondent With Writ Petition No. (SS) 523 of 2011 Yajvender Singh Negi and others …Petitioners Versus Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. ….Respondent With Writ Petition No. (SS) 712 of 2011 Lakshman Singh Rawat and others …Petitioners Versus Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. ….Respondent With Writ Petition No. (SS) 713 of 2011 Nandan Singh Negi and others …Petitioners Versus Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. ….Respondent Present : Mr. Sanjay Raruti and Mr. V. P. Bahuguna, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. Lalit Samant and Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocates for the respondent. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. Sanjay Raturi and Mr. V. P. Bahuguna, Advocates for the petitioners and Mr. Lalit Samant and Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocates for the respondent. 2 This bunch of writ petitions pertain to similar issue and hence all the writ petitions are being decided together. According to the petitioners, they are daily rated workers working on a consolidated amount in “Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam” (from hereinafter referred to as GMVN), which is a Government company. The grievance of the petitioners is that vide order dated 3.5.2011 pursuant to the earlier decision taken in the meeting of GMVN on 7.9.2010 and 5.3.2011, the names of certain daily rated workers have been included and consequently they shall continue to be on daily rated basis until further orders. In other words, such workers will not be given any break in service. Since the petitioners were given a break in their service from time to time, they are aggrieved by their non-inclusion in the said list. The respondent i.e. GMVN, which is main party is being represented by Mr. Lalit Samant and Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocates. Their contention though is that pursuant to a meeting held on 5.3.2011 (minutes of which have been annexed) it was decided that such workers who have been working on a muster role continuously, at least for a period of one year till 21.7.2007 and thereafter have also been working continuously, their services shall continue only on muster role basis until further orders. Thereafter a list was prepared of such employees by GMVN and published on 3.5.2011 which is also challenged in these writ petitions, whereby the names of 169 Class IV employees and 54 Class III employees were published. Since the names of the present petitioners do not figure in the 3 present list they have moved the writ petitions with the following prayers:- “I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to include the name of the petitioners in the list prepared on 3.5.2011 pursuant to the decision taken in the 103rd meeting held on 7.9.2011 of the Board of Directors of Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. and to allow to the petitioners to continue to work in their respective post. II. Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case. III. Award cost of the petition. Additional Prayer made by Amendment. IV. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 27th June 2011 passed by respondent, Nigam.” The respondent has stated that pursuant to the minutes of meeting and the said order dated 5.3.2011 only such employees have to be placed in that list who had regularly worked for at least one year till 21.7.2007 and thereafter have been continuously working. The petitioners do not come in this category. The petitioners, on the other hand, contend that they have been regularly working since 31.12.2007 and thereafter only an artificial break has been given in their services and hence this break is not liable to be considered as a break in service as it is only “artificial”. Apart from this, the petitioners have also pointed out certain names in the list dated 3.5.2011 of Class III employee from list 46 to 54 and thereafter Class IV employee from 161 to 169 who have not put in one year’s continuous service prior to 31.12.2007. On perusal of the said list, the contention of the petitioners appears to be correct inasmuch as these employees have been appointed as late as on 1.5.2007 4 onwards have been considered. Therefore there is an apparent arbitrariness in this matter. All the same, since such employees have not been made party before this Court, this Court presently refrains to pass any order in the present writ petitions, which may have adverse consequences on such persons. Be that as it may, since at least it is clear that there is no proper application of mind while preparing such a list, this Court therefore directs the Managing Director, GMVN to hear the contention of the petitioners as regarding inclusion of their names in the said list. The needful to be done within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the Managing Director, GMVN. Learned counsels for the respondent Mr. Lalit Samant and Mr. Sandeep Kothari have stated that the petitioners were working in a mining establishment where there is no work between 1st July to 30th September. In case this is so since admittedly the respondent has other areas of business in their organization they shall also consider taking work from the petitioners in such organization where there is a continuity of work. Since there has been an interim order already in some of these writ petitions, it is made clear that subject to the above the said interim orders are vacated. With the above observations, all these writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 18.08.2011 Kuldeep