The petitioners in Civil Rule Nos.635 of 1998 and 636 of 1993 are seeking regularisation of their service in the post of Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works on the ground, inter alia that they have been holding the charge of Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works since 1986. The petitioner in Civil Rule No. 635 of 1993 (PV Verghese) has been holding the charge of Executive Engineer since 23rd September, 1986. The petitioner in Civil Rule No. 636 of 1993 (L. Manihar Singh) has been holding the charge of Surveyor of Works/Executive Engineer since 10th October, 1986. These two petitioners have been holding the aforesaid posts since 1986 continuously till date. 2. Both the petitioners are Diploma holders. In terms of recruitment rules, they are eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer/Surve­yor of Works after putting in regular service as Assistant Engineer for nine (9) years. By Government order dated 4th July 1983, the service of the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 635 of 1993 Shri PV Verghese was regularised in the post of Assistant Engineer wef 24.11 1969. Hence when order was issued on 23rd September, 1986 to hold the charge of Executive Engineer Shri Verghese had already put in service as Assistant Engineer for about 17 years. By order dated 11th September, 1981, the service of Shri L. Manihar Singh, petitioner in Civil Rule No. 636 of 1993 in the post of Assistant Engineer was regularised wef 6.12.1971. Hence when he was ordered to hold the charge of Surveyor of Works/Executive Engineer by order dated 10th October, 1986, Shri Mauhar Singh had put in service as Assistant Engineer for about fifteen years. Therefore, both the petitioners claim that since they were eligible for regular promotion to the post of Executive Engineer/ Surveyor of Works in 1986, they ought to have been given regular appoint­ment instead of allowing them to hold the charge of the aforesaid posts inasmuch as they had requisite qualifications to hold the posts in question. At this stage, it may be stated that in terms of recruitment rules, Diploma holders cannot go beyond the post of Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works. At this stage, it may be also stated that Shri Verghese, petitioner in Civil Rule No. 635 of 1993 will retire in about two (2) years or so, whereas Shri L. Manihar Singh will retire in another four (4) years or so. 3. At this stage, it may be also stated that Shri Verghese, petitioner in Civil Rule No. 635 of 1993 will retire in about two (2) years or so, whereas Shri L. Manihar Singh will retire in another four (4) years or so. 3. It appears the contention of the petitioners that they have been holding the charge of Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works since 1986 till date is correct inasmuch as the Court had passed order on 28.6.90 in CR No 282 of 1990 in respect of Shri Verghese to maintain status quo as Executive Engineer until further orders and also another order dated 12.10.87 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Application No. 1140/87/403/87 in connection with Civil Rule No. 1060 of 1987, status quo of Shri L. Manihar Singh as Execu­tive Engineer/Surveyor of Works was ordered to be maintained. It may also be stated that on 21.9.89, on the basis of submission made by the Govt. Advocate, that the promotion of the petitioner was being considered, this Court had made it clear that order of status quo should not prevent the respondent Government from appointing the petitioner as Executive Engineer during the pendency of the petition. It was stated in the said order that the respondent Government shall inform the Court after appointment is made in the backdrop of this case it appears even as early as in 1987, the eligibility of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works was not in doubt in the mind of the Government inasmuch as it was also made clear at the Bar that the Government was considering the case of the petitioners for promotion to the aforesaid posts. 4. Mr. KNK Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case of the petitioners could have been considered within the purview of Office Memorandum dated 9th October, 1992 for the purpose of regularise tion of posts held on ad-hoc basis continuously for five (5) years as on 1.1.1992. The manner in which such posts was held as stated in this Memorandum is either on ad-hoc or officiating basis. It is submitted that since the petitioners are holding the posts in question In incharge' arrangement, the case of the petitioners have been left out. The manner in which such posts was held as stated in this Memorandum is either on ad-hoc or officiating basis. It is submitted that since the petitioners are holding the posts in question In incharge' arrangement, the case of the petitioners have been left out. It is submitted that by simply using certain terminology in tie appointment order, the right of the petitioners cannot be ignored inasmuch as factually the petitioners have been working as Execu­tive Engineer/Surveyor of Works for so many years. According to the learned counsel it makes no difference whether the appointment has been made to hold the charge or on ad-hoc basis or officiating basis. It is stated that there is only one post of Executive Engineer at Tenonoupal Division and Shri PV Verghese has been holding the charge of the said post since 1986. It is, there­fore, submitted that since the alone post has been lying vacant and since the post has been held by Shri Verghese for such a long time, there is no reason to deny regular appointment to the petitioner against the post of Executive Engineer. It is also submitted that in case of one Shri Janaki who was similarly situated with the present petitioners, a regular appointment has been issued, It appears Shri Janaki was holding the post of Executive Engineer on ad-hoc basis before regular appointment was issued. It the grievance of the petitioners that by simply using the word 'ad-hoc appointment' Shri Janaki's case was treated differently to the detriment of the petitioners who were appointed to hold the charge of Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works since 1986. 5. Shri Ashok Potsangbam, learned counsel appearing for the Depart­ment submits that the case of the petitioners had been duly considered, but they were not found eligible. That was some time in 1990. It is submitted that in view of Court's order of status quo passed in respect of the petitioners in 1990, the Department could not take further action in the matter. In this view of the matter the fact that the petitioners have been holding the post of Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works since 1986 till date is not disputed, although it is submitted that it is so in view of Courts order of status quo as mentioned above. 6. In this view of the matter the fact that the petitioners have been holding the post of Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works since 1986 till date is not disputed, although it is submitted that it is so in view of Courts order of status quo as mentioned above. 6. It is further submitted on behalf of the Department that the petitioners have no right to claim regular appointment while serving as 'in-charge' Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works inasmuch as in-charge arrangement does not give any right to the appointees in such in-charge arrangement. It appears, the case of the petitioners was considered in 1990. By 1990, the petitioners had put in service as Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works for about 4 years by holding the charge of the posts in question. It is also submitted by Mr. Ashok Potsangbam that the petitioners have been holding the charge of Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works without getting salary of the posts in question inasmuch as they are still holding their substan­tive posts of Assistant Engineer. It is also submitted that the Government order to hold the charge of Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works is purely a stop-gap arrangement and it gives no right to the petitioners to claim regular appointment. Mr. Ashok Potsangbam refers me to AIR 1961 SC 1145 and submits that the decision made in this case applies to the present case. The case referred to by him is relating to the service of one UDA of the then Goa Administration under the Portuguese Regime. Upon the death of regular incumbent, the petitioner in the above case was asked to perform the duties of the Treasurer on the stipulation that he would draw besides the monthly salary of his own post an allowances of Rs.100/- per month. After the liberation of the territories in the Portuguese occupation, question arose as to the equivalent post to which the appellant would be entitled in the corresponding service in India. It was found in terms of the regulation made in this regard by which services of the erstwhile Portuguese Regime were subsequently absorbed after the territories were liberated by India, that the substantive post held by the petitioner in that case was not equated to that of the Treasurer. Hence the claim of the petitioner in that case was not allowed. It appears the facts of this case would not apply to the case in hand. Hence the claim of the petitioner in that case was not allowed. It appears the facts of this case would not apply to the case in hand. As mentioned earlier, even as early as 1987 it was stated that the Government was considering promotion of the petitioners to the posts held by them. It is nowhere stated that in terms of recruitment rules, the petitioners are not eligible for appointment to the posts in question. It is also not disputed that the petitioners began to hold the charge of their respective posts after they had put in 15 to 17 years as Assistant Engineer, whereas the normal requirement in terms of the service rules is 9 years regular service as Assistant Engineer for consideration of promotion to the post of Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works. Although it has been stated on behalf of the Government that while tae cases of the petitioners were duly considered in 1989-90 and that their cases were not recommended at that time, whether this fact, assuming it is correct should stand in the way of the petitioner in the matter of promotion indefinitely. In other words, assuming the petitioners were not recommended for promotion in 1989-90, whether the service of the petitioners between 1986 and 1990 could be considered to be stop-gap arrangement. It appears to me that if the in-charge arrangement was to meet an administrative exigency, such arrangement would I have been for a short period. In other words in-charge arrangement cannot be made for a very long time. It is not the case of the Government that the services of the petitioners were utilised to meet the exigency for a short period. It is not the case of the Government either that at the time the petitioners were asked to hold the charge of the posts in question they did not have requisite minimum qualifications to hold the posts in question. The story would have been different if the petitioners had been used for a period of 6 months or even one year or so. Even assuming that their cases were rejected in 1989-90, they had been holding the charge for about 4 years continuously and the Government did not take any steps to fill up the posts on regular basis. The story would have been different if the petitioners had been used for a period of 6 months or even one year or so. Even assuming that their cases were rejected in 1989-90, they had been holding the charge for about 4 years continuously and the Government did not take any steps to fill up the posts on regular basis. Since the services of the petitioners had been used continuously for 4 years before their cases were considered, the in-charge arrangement cannot be said to be a stop-gap arrangement. It must be presumed that there was a continuous need of the services of the petitioners in the posts held by them for 4 years before their cases were considered, let alone they have put in about 8 years as Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works till date, although it is true that the petitioners have continued in the posts in question after 1990 by virtue of this Court's order of status quo. It is not the case of the Govern­ment that while holding the charge of the Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works, the petitioners have some disability in discharging their duties as Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works. In other words, it is not the case of the Government that the duties and the functions of regularly appointed Executive Engineers/Surveyor of Works are different from the duties and functions of persons who hold the charge of the same posts. By putting in 8 years service as Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works, the petitioners have gained much experience in this grade. In this view of the matter non-receipt of regular pay and allowances of Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works should not make any difference as far as the responsibility and duty assigned to the posts are concerned. Even assuming that some Assistant Engineers in the Department are senior in the grade of Assistant Engineer, because of the fact that the petitioners have served as Executive Engineer/ Surveyor of Works for such a very long period of time, by now it would be very equitable to consider regular promotion of the petitioners inasmuch as their services have been used for such a long period of time by the State. 7. The facts of AIR J973 Madhya Pradesh 104 which has been referred to by Shri Ashok Potsangbam also do not appear to apply to the present case. 7. The facts of AIR J973 Madhya Pradesh 104 which has been referred to by Shri Ashok Potsangbam also do not appear to apply to the present case. In this Madhya Pradesh case SDO was simply given current charge when Collector was on leave. The SDO presided over a meeting on a particular day. It was purely a stop-gap arrangement for a very short period. In the case in hand we find that till 1990 when this Court passed the order of status quo, the petitioners had already put in continuous service for 4 years and by now 8 years. In this view of the matter, the submission made on behalf of the Government that the arrangement was purely a stop-gap one is 'not acceptable and is clearly belied by the circumstances of the present case and also in view of the submission made by the Govt. Advocate in 1987 that the Government was indeed considering promotion of the petitioners to the post of Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works. As stated earlier, it has also been contended that the case of Shri Janaki whose case was also said to have been rejected in 1989 has now been regularised. 8. Upon hearing learned counsel of the parties and on careful perusal of the pleadings and the documents on record, I am of the view that it will be just, fair and reasonable and also equitable that in the circumstances of the case, the petitioners should be given regular appointment in the post of Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works, especially in view of the fact that Shri Verghese shall go on retirement in 2 years or so and Shri L. Manihar Singh will follow suit in another 4 years or so and also in view of the fact that they have already gained much experience in discharging the duties of the posts presently held by them. Further, I am of the view that since the petitioners last promotion in the career of their service is Executive Engineer/ Surveyor of Works, it will meet the ends of justice to consider their case for regular appointment in the posts in question. 9. In the premises aforesaid, these petitions are allowed. Further, I am of the view that since the petitioners last promotion in the career of their service is Executive Engineer/ Surveyor of Works, it will meet the ends of justice to consider their case for regular appointment in the posts in question. 9. In the premises aforesaid, these petitions are allowed. The petitioners shall be given regular appointment to the post of Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works, making it clear that seniority shall be determined in accordance with relevant Rules in this regard and further making it clear that the petitioners shall not claim pay and allowances of the post of Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works for the period they have served by holding the charge of the posts in question in view of the peculiar circumstances of the present case. I have come to the above conclusion in order to see that the petitioners who have served the State of Manipur for so many years might retire as Executive Engineer which is their last hope in their service career as Diploma holders. With the above direction and observation these petitions are disposed of. In view of my findings above, Civil Rule No. 1060/87/S10/87 and Civil Rule 282/90, also stand disposed of. I make no order as to costs.