In these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for declaring the order dated 2.9.88 issued by the Chief Engineer, Department of Irrigation & Flood Control, Govt. of Manipur, terminating their services, as null and void and for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioners. As the facts of the CUM and the points of law raised in all these writ petitions are more or less common, this batch of 16 writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The brief facts as stated in the. writ petitions are that the petitioners were appointed in the posts of Gauge Reader, Laboratory Assistant, Foreman Mechanic, Assistant Driller, Fitter, Jugali, Electrical Mistry and Electrician during the months of January, February and March. 1985, by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Control Department. Government of Manipur, on ad hoc basis. Pursuant to the said appointments, the petitioners joined their respective posts and their ad hoc appointments were extended from time to time. While they were working in such ad-hoc employment, during the year 1985, Departmental Promotion Committee was held for regularisation of the service of the petitioners and several other ad hoc employees. Although the petitioners appeared in the said Departmental Promotion Committee, their results were not declared. On the other hand, nine Lower Division Clerks who had been similarly appointed on ad hoc basis also appeared before the Departmental Promotion Committee and their results were declared and they were regularised by order dated 2.9.88 of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation & Flood Control Department, Government of Manipur. Thereafter, the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division), Government of Manjpur, issued Office Memorandum dated 31.5.86 according to which, persons appointed on ad hoc basis under the Government of Manipur upto 31.12.84 were to be regularised with effect from 31.5.86. Finally, by a common office order dated 2.9.88 of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation & Flood Control Department, Government of Manipur, it was declared that 27 persons including the petitioners would cease to be in their respective service with effect from 5.9.88. Finally, by a common office order dated 2.9.88 of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation & Flood Control Department, Government of Manipur, it was declared that 27 persons including the petitioners would cease to be in their respective service with effect from 5.9.88. The petitioners have challenged the said order dated 2.9.88 of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation & Flood Control Department, Government of Manipur, on the ground that it is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and that as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in various decisions, the petitioners are entitled to be regularised in their respective posts having put in more than 4 years service. 3. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos 1, 2 and 3, it has been stated that the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis and their appointments were purely temporary in nature and were liable to be terminated. The respondents have further stated that the appointments were also made without any proper advertisement or requisition from the Employment Exchanges and also without affording any opportunity to other eligible candidates and without any selection. Regarding the Departmental Promotion Committee held in the year 1985 for filling up various vacancies in the Irrigation and Flood Control Department, it has stated that the Departmental Promotion Committee was not approved by the Government. A copy of the letter dated 19.8.88 of the Government of Manipur in the Secretariat IFC Department to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Control Department not approving the Departmental Promotion Committee has been annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition as Annexure R/1. The respondents have also contended in the affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioners are not eligible to be regularised under the Office Memorandum dated 31.5.86 of the Government of Manipur, Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division). On the facts, according to respondents, there is no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. At the time of hearing of writ petitions, Mr. BP Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners have put in more than 4 years of service on ad hoc basis and were given all benefits of regular employees. Mr. 4. At the time of hearing of writ petitions, Mr. BP Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners have put in more than 4 years of service on ad hoc basis and were given all benefits of regular employees. Mr. Sahu further submitted that had the results of the Departmental Promotion Committee held in 1985 for regularisation of the petitioners' service in their respective posts been declared the service of the petitioners would not have been terminated but would have been regularised. In fact, a Departmental Promotion Committee was also held for regularisation of ad hoc Lower Division Clerks who were appointed at the same time as the petitioners and the results of the said Departmenal Promotion Committee were declared and they were regularised. According to Mr. Sahu such action of the respondents in regularising the service of nine Lower Division Clerks and terminating the service of the petitioners amount to discrimination, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of L India. Mr. Sahu relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in (1977) 4 SCC 3, (1987) Suppl SCC 497, AIR 1992 SC 677 , AIR 1992 SC 2130 , in support of his aforesaid submissions. Mr. Sahu has also cited the decision of this Court in the case of L. Shyamkishore Singh in Civil Rule No.131 of 1988 and 46 of 1984 rendered on 11.2.88 and the order dated 10.11.89 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 463 of 1989 (arising out of SLP No. 7898 of 1988). He also relied on the decision of this Court in Civil Rule No 391 of 1984 as well as the decision of this Court reported in (1994) 1 GLR 781. According to Mr. Sahu the Supreme Court as well as this Court have in these decisions issued directions from time to time for regularising the service of ad hoc employees who have put in several years of service. Mr. Sahu in particular, brought to my notice the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130 to the effect that, if an employee is allowed to continue on ad hoc basis for a long spell of time, i.e. 2 to 3 years, the authorities must consider his case for regularisation. The aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court according to Mr. The aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court according to Mr. Sahu squarely applies to the facts of the present case since the petitioners have put in more than 4 years of service continuosuly and accordingly, the respondents should be directed uvregularise the service of the petitioners. 5. In reply to the said submissions of Mr. Sahu. Mr. N.Promod Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the appointments of the petitioners under Annexure I were purely on ad hoc basis and such ad hoc appointments were liable to be terminated in terms of the appointment letters. The petitioners, therefore, have no right to the posts and are liable to be terminated. Mr. Promod Singh further submitted that the Office Memorandum dated 31.5.86 of the Government of Manipur, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division) would indicate that under the said Office Memorandum only persons appointed on ad hoc basis upto 31.12.84 could be regularised and as the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis after 31.12. 84, they could not be regularised as per the said Office Memorandum. He further submitted that the results of the Departmental Promotion Committee held in the year 1985. for regularisation of the petitioners was not declared because it was found by the Government that the Departmental Promotion Committee was held in violation of the reservation policy. Thus no discrimination can be attributed to the respondents for not regularising the service of the petitioners and terminating h them while at the same time regularising the service of nine Lower Division Clerks appointed on ad hoc basis on the recommendation of a Departmental Promotion Committee. Mr.Promod Singh also submitted that in the meanwhile some of the posts to which the petitioners are claiming regularisation have been filled up and those posts are no longer available for regularisation of the petitioners. With regard to the decisions of the Supreme Court cited by Mr. Sahu, Mr. Promod Singh contended that those decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court were rendered on the facts of their own cases and the directions issued in those cases for regularisation do not constitute ratio decidendi binding on this Court. In support of his proposition, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1979 SC 1384 , AIR 1982 SC 145 and AIR 1987 SC 1070 . Mr. In support of his proposition, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1979 SC 1384 , AIR 1982 SC 145 and AIR 1987 SC 1070 . Mr. Promod Singh also cited the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1993 SC 43 , wherein it was held that while reading a judgment of the Supreme Court it is not permissible to pick out a word or a sentence divorced from its context and treat the same as law declared by the Supreme Court under Articles 141 of the Constitution of India. According to him, the said decision of the Supreme Court makes it clear that the judgment of the Supreme Court has to be read as a whole in the context of the question raised therein. Regarding the decision of the Court in Dr. AK Jain's case reported in (1987) Suppl SCC 497 and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Shyamkishore vs. State of Manipur, in Civil Appeal No. 463 of 1989 relied on by Mr. Sahu, Mr. Promod Singh submitted that those decisions were directions of the Supreme Court under Articles 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice between the parties and cannot be treated as law binding on this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Promod Singh submitted that in the case of J & K Public Service Commission vs. Dr. Narender Mohan, (1994) 2 SCC 630 , it has been explained by the Supreme Court that the directions given by the Supreme Court in Dr. AK Jain's case for regularisation are under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and thus should not be treated as law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 14T of the Constitution of India. He also cited the decision reported in AIR 1992 SC 1593 which indicates the special power of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice between the parties which was not available to the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Mr. Promod Singh also reliednpon the decision of the Apex Court reported in (1993)2 SCC 213 wherein the Apex Court has deprecated the practice of irregular appointments made in complete disregard of the rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Promod Singh also reliednpon the decision of the Apex Court reported in (1993)2 SCC 213 wherein the Apex Court has deprecated the practice of irregular appointments made in complete disregard of the rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. He also cited the decision of the Apex Court in (1992) 4 SCC 33 , wherein the Apex Court has held that when any ad hoc appointments comes to an end by efflux of time, the appointee has no right to continue in the post. Mr. Promod Singh explained that in the case of State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130 , the Supreme Court dealt with the powers of the Court to issue directions with regard to regularisation and in the said decision the Supreme Court held that the Court had very limited role to play in matters of creation of posts and appointment to such posts which were really matters within the power of the executive. 6. The aforesaid submissions of Mr. Promod Singh, were vehemently resisted by Mr. Sahu, who submitted that under the Office Memorandum dated 31.5.86 of the Government of Manipur, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division) all the ad hoc appointees appointed upto 31.12.84 were regularised but the petitioners who were appointed within a few days after 31.12.84 were not regularised, despite the fact that they have pin in more than 4 years continuous service as ad hoc employees. Mr. Sahu also submitted that the respondents cannot take the stand that no ad hoc employee is entitled to regularisation when the respondents have themselves regularised the service of various ad hoc employees pursuant to Office Memorandum dated 31.5.86 irrespective of whether they were appointed pursuant to an advertisement or requisition to the Employment. Exchanges or they were selected by a Departmental Promotion Committee. According to Mr. Sahu this is clear case of discrimination between ad hoc employees similarly situated and the Court has ample powers to interfere with the matter for violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In view of the said submissions made by Mr. Exchanges or they were selected by a Departmental Promotion Committee. According to Mr. Sahu this is clear case of discrimination between ad hoc employees similarly situated and the Court has ample powers to interfere with the matter for violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In view of the said submissions made by Mr. Sahu by order dated 24.7.94, called upon the respondents to file an affidavit stating ;is to why the cut-off date 31.12.84 was taken in the Office Memorandum dated 31.5.86 for regularisation of ad hoc employees and pursuant to the said order, the respondents have filed an affidavit giving various reasons for the said cut-off date. 7. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the first question which falls for determination is whether the termination order dated 2.9.88(Annexure A/2) issued by the Chief Engineer. Irrigation & Flood Control, Government of Manipur is null and void and violative of Articles Hand 16 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis and it was expressly stipulated in their appointment orders that their appointments are purely temporary on ad hoc basis for a period of six months or till the posts were filled up on regular basis whichever was earlier. The said ad hoc appointments of the petitioners, however, were extended from time to time. In the case of Director of Institute of Management Development vs. Pushpa Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 2070 , the Supreme Court considered the question whether an ad hoc appointee has a right to continue in the post after the period of ad hoc appointment and answered the question in the negative. In the language of the Supreme Court : "To our mind, it is clear that where the appointment is contractual and by efflux of time, the appointment comes to an end. the respondent could have no right to continue in the post. Once this conclusion is arrived at what requires to he examined is, in view of the services of the respondent being continued from time to time on Ad hoc basis for more than a year whether she is entitled to he regularized ? the respondent could have no right to continue in the post. Once this conclusion is arrived at what requires to he examined is, in view of the services of the respondent being continued from time to time on Ad hoc basis for more than a year whether she is entitled to he regularized ? The answer should he in the negative." This being the law, since the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis for a certain period, merely because the petitioners' appointments on ad hoc basis were continued from time to time for a period of about 4 years, the petitioners could not claim a right to the posts which they were holding during the period of ad hoc appointments and their service could be terminated at any time after the end of ad hoc period of appointment. 8. Mr. Sahu, however, submitted that the termination of the service of the petitioners under the impugned order was discriminatory and violative of fundamental rights of the petitioners under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the Lower Division Clerks who were also appointed on ad hoe basis around the same time as the petitioners, were not terminated from service and their service were regularised on the basis of recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee but in the ease of the petitioners Departmental Promotion Committee was held in the year 1985 for their regularisation but the results of the Departmental Promotion Committee were not declared and their service were terminated. But it appeal's from the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondents that the said Departmental Promotion Committee held for regularisation of the petitioners was not approved by the Government on account of violation of reservation policy Thus, the case of the petitioners stood on a different footing from that of the Lower Division Clerks, and there was, therefore no discrimination as such between the petitioners and the said Lower Division Clerks and it is difficult to hold on the facts of the present ease that the impugned order terminating the service of the petitioners was null and void on account of violation of fundamental rights of the petitioners under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 9. The next question which arises for determination is whether any direction can be issued as prayed for by the petitioners for their regularisation in their respective posts. 9. The next question which arises for determination is whether any direction can be issued as prayed for by the petitioners for their regularisation in their respective posts. On a reading of the different decisions of the Apex Court cited by Mr. Sahu as well as Mr. Promod Singh, I am of the view that each of the said decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this Court were rendered in the facts of the cases, and as submitted by Mr. Promod Singh. a line here or a sentence there from the said judgments of the. Apex Court or this Court cannot be picked out and applied to the facts of the present case. In facts, in the case of State of Haryana vs. Piara Singli, AIR 1992 SC 2130 , the Supreme Court examined the different judgments of the Apex Court wherein directions for regularisation had been given and held in para 17 of the judgment : "there can he no 'rule of thumb' in such matters. Conditions and circumstances of one unit may not be the same as of the other. Just because in one case, a direction was given to regularise employees who have put in one years service as far as possible and subject to fulfilling the qualifications, ii cannot he held that in each and every case such direction must follow irrespective of and without taking into account the other relevant circumstances and considerations. The relief must be moulded in each case having regard to all the relevant facts and circumstances of that case. It cannot he a mechanical act but a judicious one." Regarding power of the Court to issue direction in matters of regularisalion the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in the case of State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh (supra) further held in para 10 that the creation and abolition of a post is the prerogative of the executive and the power to prescribe conditions of service by making rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India or by issuing instruction also belongs to the executive and the role of the Court in such matters is limited. In the language of the Supreme Court : "The Court comes into picture only to ensure observance of fundamental rights, statutory provisions, rules and other instructions, if any, governing the condition of service. In the language of the Supreme Court : "The Court comes into picture only to ensure observance of fundamental rights, statutory provisions, rules and other instructions, if any, governing the condition of service. The main concern of the Court in such matters is to ensure the Rule of law and to see that the executive acts fairly and gives a fair deal to its employees consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16." Consistent with the aforesaid principle that the Court's role is limited to ensure that the executive acts fairly and gives fair deal to its employees as per the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court further held in the case of Piara Singh (supra) that where the Government has taken steps for regularisation of the ad hoc employees by issuing orders for regularisation there is no occasion for the Court to issue any direction for regularising such employees, and in case an employee does not satisfy the conditions prescribed in the Government order for regular!sations it is for the Government to consider the feasibilities of giving appropriate relief. In para 23 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court observed : "This is not a case, we must reiterate, where the Government have failed to take any steps for regularisation of their ad hoc employees working over the years. Every few years they have been issuing order providing for regularisation. In such a case, there is no occasion for the Court to issue any directions for regularising such employees more particularly when none of the conditions prescribed in the said orders can be said to be either unreasonable, arbitrary or discriminatory. The Court cannot obviously help those who cannot get regularised under these orders for their failure to satisfy the conditions prescribed therein. Issuing general declaration of indulgence is no part of our jurisdiction. In case of such persons we can only observe that it is for the respective Governments to consider the feasibility of giving them appropriate relief, particularly, in cases where persons have been continuing over a long number of years, and were eligible and qualified on the date of their ad hoc appointment and further whose record of service is satisfactory." 10. Applying the aforesaid principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh (supra), to the present case, by Office Memorandum dated 31.5.86, the Government of Manipur in the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division) had decided that all the ad hoc appointees who were appointed upto 31.12.84 in Class I, Class II, Class III and Class IV posts in vacancies against the direct recruitment quota and who continued to hold the said posts on ad hoc basis till 24.5.86 and fulfilled the requirements excepting the age limit as laid down in the relevant recruitment rules for appointment to the posts, may be regularised with effect from 24.5.86 without requisition to Manipur Public Service Commission or without reference to the Departmental Promotion Committee and wherever Departmental Promotion Committee for regularisation of ad hoc appointees have been held but results have not been announced, the ad hoc appointees should be regularised in similar manner as if no Departmental Promotion Committee have been held. The petitioners' grievance is that by Office Memorandum dated 31.5.86, all the ad hoc appointees upto 31.12.84 and who continued to hold the posts on 24.5.86 were entitled to be considered for regularisation so long as they fulfilled the requirements of the relevant recruitment rules for appointment to such posts excepting the age limit, but the petitioners' who have been appointed a few days or a month or two after 31.12.84 have been arbitrarily and in an unfair manner deprived of the benefit of regularisation under the aforesaid Office Memorandum and hence the said Office Memorandum dated 31.5.86 is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 11. Mr. Promod Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, took me through paragraph 13 and 23 of the judgment in the case of State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh (supra). In para 13 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has held that Government orders are not in the nature of a statute which are applicable to all existing and future situations and they are issued to meet a given situation faced by the Government at a given time and there was nothing wrong in prescribing a particular date by which the specified period of service (whether it is one year or two years) ought to have been put in. In para 23 of the said judgment quoted above, the Supreme Court father held that the Court cannot obviously held those who could not be regularised under the order for regularisation for their failure to satisfy the conditions prescribed therein and in such cases, it is for the respective Government to consider the feasibility to give them appropriate relief. While there is a lot of force in this submission of Mr. Promod Singh, in my opinion, paragraphs 13 and 23 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Piara Singh's case cannot be read in isolation from the rest of the judgment where the Supreme Court has said in no uncertain terms that the concern of the Courts in such matters is to see that the executive acts fairly and gives a fair deal to its employees consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the Court must take into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances of the case in a judicious manner and mould the relief accordingly. 12. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos 1, 2 and 3 pursuant to the order of this Court dated 29.7.94, the respondents have given the following 4 reasons as to why it was stipulated in the Office Memorandum dated 31.5.86 that persons appointed on ad hoc basis upto 31.12.84 may be regularised in their respective posts : (a) The Government wanted long suffering ad hoc employees to be benefited by the scheme. They should have served on ad hoc basis for some years. (b) The Government did not like the fresh ad hoc employees to be benefited by the scheme as their case could be solved by resort to normal recruitment process. (c) From about the year 1985 strict instructions were issued by the Government from time to time not to resort to ad hoc appointment except on compelling circumstances as laid down in the instructions. (d) From a study of the records and datas most of the ad-hoc employees were appointed prior to 31st December, 1984. From the aforesaid reasons of the respondent Nos 1, 2 and 3 it is difficult to hold that if was arbitrary on the part of the respondents to stipulate in the Office Memorandum dated 31.5.86 that the persons appointed on ad hoc basis upto 31.12.84 may be regularised. From the aforesaid reasons of the respondent Nos 1, 2 and 3 it is difficult to hold that if was arbitrary on the part of the respondents to stipulate in the Office Memorandum dated 31.5.86 that the persons appointed on ad hoc basis upto 31.12.84 may be regularised. As has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Piara Singh (supra). Office Memorandum dated 31.5.86 is a Government order and not a statute and the date 31.12.84 has been adopted by the State Government as cut-off date taking into consideration the aforesaid 4 reasons. But the four reasons indicated in the affidavit filed by the respondents did not warrant exclusion of the petitioners who were appointed on ad hoc basis on 18.1.85, 28.1.85, 8.2.85, 12.2.85 and 5.3.85 for regularisation in terms of the said Office Memorandum dated 31.5.86. On the contrary, for the same reasons, the petitioners appointed a few days or a month or two after 31.12.84 on ad hoc basis deserved consideration for regularisation. In other words, the petitioners had served on ad hoc basis for some years as on 24.5.86. were no! fresh ad hoc employees and were appointed pursuant to Govt. letter dated 18.12.84 by the Chief Engineer on ad hoc basis presumably on compelling circumstances. Thus, this is not a case where the Office Memorandum dated 31.5.86 of the Government of Manipur, for regularisation of ad hoc employees appointed upto 31.12.84 is on the face of it arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory, but this case where the petitioners who were appointed only a few days or a month or two after the cut off date 31.12.84 have been deprived of fair and equal treatment in the matter of regularisation in public employment consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 13. Mr. Promod Singh. learned counsel for the respondents, forcefully argued that the petitioners had not been appointed pursuant to any advertisement inviting applications for the posts or by requisition to the Employment Exchanges or by any selection process and. therefore, any direction for regularisation by this Court would only encourage such irregular and back door entries into Government services in future. While there is a lot of support in the said submission of Mr. therefore, any direction for regularisation by this Court would only encourage such irregular and back door entries into Government services in future. While there is a lot of support in the said submission of Mr. Promod Singh in various decisions of the Apex Court cited by him, I am of the view that in the present case it was not open to the respondents to raise such a contention at all in view of the fact that under the Office Memorandum dated 31.5.86 the State Government itself has provided for regularisation of all ad hoc appointees appointed upto 31.12.84 irrespective of whether they were appointed pursuant to advertisement or requisition to Employment Exchange or selection in the Public Services Commission or the Departmental Promotion Committee. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, therefore. I am of the view that the petitioners' case for regularisation should be considered bv the respondents in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated 31.5.86 even though they were appointed a few days or a month or two after the cut-off date 31.12.84 subject to the condition that the petitioners satisfy the other requirements of the recruitment rules excepting the age limit. There are, however, a few practical difficulties which need consideration. Mr. Promod Singh pointed out that all the five posts of Gauge Readers held by the petitioners in Civil Rule Nos 515, 509, 520. 521 and 522 1988 have been filled up in the meanwhile by persons appointed under the die-in-harness scheme. Similarly, out of four posts of Laboratory Assistants held by the petitioners in Civil Rule Nos 525. 526.529 and 530 of 1988. two posts have in the meanwhile been filled up by appointments under the die-in-harness scheme. Mr. Promod Singh also stated that the post of Electrical Mistry held by the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 518 of 1988 has already been filled up and the remaining posts have not been filled up as yet. 526.529 and 530 of 1988. two posts have in the meanwhile been filled up by appointments under the die-in-harness scheme. Mr. Promod Singh also stated that the post of Electrical Mistry held by the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 518 of 1988 has already been filled up and the remaining posts have not been filled up as yet. I am of the opinion that since each of these posts were held by the petitioners as on 24.5.86 and thereafter until the petitioners were terminated from the service by the impugned order dated 2.9.86 with effect from 5.9.88, it would not be fair and just to deny regularisation to the petitioners merely because some of the posts held by the petitioners have been filled up in the meanwhile and the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated 31.5.86 in such other posts as may be available now or as may be available in the near future in any department of the Government of Manipur. Such consideration for regularisation in accordance with Office Memorandum dated 31.5.86 will obviously be subject to the reservation policy. It is also made clear that on regularisation, none of the petitioners will be entitled to pay and allowances for the period they have been out of employment on account of termination from service by order dated 2.9.88 with effect from 5.9.88. Further on such regularisation, the seniority of the petitioners will be counted only form the date on which they are regularly appointed after consideration by the respondents and not from the date on which they were initially appointed in the year 1985. These specific directions are being given after taking into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances of the present case and for ensuring fair treatment to the petitioners consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 15. In the result, the challenge to the impugned order dated 2.9.88 of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Flood Control Department. Government of Manipur, terminating the petitioner from their respective services with effect from 5.9.88 has not merit and fails, but the respondents are directed to, consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation in accordance with Office Memorandum dated 31.5.86 and the observations in paragraph 14 of this judgment and pass orders within a period of six months from today.