Notified Area Council And Anr. vs Gahar Mohammad And Anr.

3. The High Court, in its judgment, has quashed the resolution dated October 27, 1995 terminating the services of the writ petitioners, respondents herein, and has directed the opposite parties in the writ petitions, the appellants herein, to allow the petitioners to join and discharge their duties in their respective posts within a period of sixty days. The High Court made it clear that the petitioners would not be entitled to any back wages, but would be deemed to be continuing in service from the date of their respective appointments for the purpose of seniority and retirement benefits. 4. From the discussions in the judgment, it is manifest that the High Court "has not appreciated" the resolution of the NAC abolishing the engagement of daily wage workers and has also taken exception to the Executive Officer terminating the appointments of the respondents who were appointed by resolution passed by the Council, From the materials available on record, it is clear that on both the counts the High Court fell into error. The position is fairly well settled that continuance or abolition of posts is within the power of the employer and any decision in that regard is not available to be interfered with by the Court unless it is held to be vitiated by mala fide or arbitrary. From the discussions in the judgment under appeal, we do not find that the High Court took into consideration any material on record to come to the conclusion that the resolution passed by the NAC, dispensing with the engagement of daily wage workers, was vitiated on any count. If the employees could not continue as daily wage workers, then the question of their regularisation in the post did not arise. It is relevant to note here that the regular appointments purportedly made by the letter dated March 22, 1995 had been cancelled within a week, by the letter dated March 29, 1995. Therefore, when the matter was being considered by the High Court, the case of the respondents could only be considered as daily wage workers and not as regular employees. 5. On consideration of the entire matter, we have no hesitation to hold that the judgment/order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and should be set aside. But the respondents, who were working as daily wage workers under the NAC will be considered for ' any future vacancy as daily rated worker or regular employee according to law, on priority basis, by waiving age bar if any. The judgment/order dated August 25, 1995 is set aside. The appeals are allowed with the above observations/directions. No order for cost.