Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 224 (JK)

Ashok Kumar v. State

2002-07-26

S.K.GUPTA, T.S.DOABIA

body2002
Per : Per Doabia J. 1. Piara Singh is a name which has become familiar with the service jurisprudence dealing with the subject of regularization. Uttam Singh is another name which has found recognition with the State of Jammu and Kashmir. On the basis of decision given in his case a circular enabling certain workers to seek regularisation has been issued. This circular makes mention of the view expressed in Piara Singhs case also. It is precisely for the reason, it would be apt to notice under what circumstances Piara Singhs case came to be decided. 2. Piara Singh moved High Court of Punjab and Haryana. A writ petition was preferred in the year 1988. This writ petition came to be decided and is reported as Piara Singh v. State of Haryana (1989) 1 PLR 396. Certain directions were given by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The State of Haryana was aggrieved, so was the State of Punjab. An appeal came to be preferred in the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court of India was of the opinion that the directions given to regularize the services of all those ad hoc temporary employees who had continued for more than a year are difficult to sustain. This was because when these directions were given, these were given without reference to the existence of the vacancy position. The problem which it was likely to create was noticed in para 33 of the judgment which stands reported as State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 118. Ultimately, it was observed that the relief in such cases must be moulded in each case having regard to all the relevant facts and circumstances of that case. This relief has to be given in a judicious manner and not in a mechanical manner. As indicated above, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court but at the same time, observed that there is a need to regularize all those ad hoc and temporary employees who are eligible and qualified and hold a post and have continued in service satisfactorily for long period. It was observed that allowing a person to continue in service for a quite long period does give rise to a presumption about need for a regular post. It was observed that allowing a person to continue in service for a quite long period does give rise to a presumption about need for a regular post. This was, however, a matter which was left to the discretion of the State Governments and they were supposed to frame some rules in this regard. Ultimately, what was said with regard to these ad hoc and temporary employees in Government service in paragraphs 45 to 51 of the judgment is being reproduced below :- "45-The normal rule, of course, is regular recruitment through the prescribed agency but exigencies of administration may some times call for an ad hoc or temporary appointment to be made. In such a situation, effort should always be to replace such an ad hoc/temporary employee may also complete alongwith others for such regular selection/appointment. If he gets selected, well and good, but if he does not, he must give to the regularly selected candidate. The appointment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an ad hoc temporary employee. "46- Secondly, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another by another ad hoc or temporary employees; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority. 47-Thirdly, even where an ad hoc or temporary employment is necessitated on account of the exigencies of administration, he should ordinarily be drawn from the employment exchange unless it cannot brook delay in which case the pressing cause must be stated on the file. If no candidate is available or is not sponsored by the employment exchange, some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other words, there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications an all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly. 48- An unqualified person ought to be appointed only when qualified persons are not available through the above processes. 49-If for any reason, an ad hoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must consider his case for regularisation provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the State. 50. 49-If for any reason, an ad hoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must consider his case for regularisation provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the State. 50. The proper course would be that each state prepares a scheme, if one is not already in vogue, for regularisations of such employees consistent with its reservation policy and if a scheme is already framed, the same may be made consistent with our observations herein so as to reduce avoidable litigation in this behalf. If and when such person is regularised he should be placed immediately below the last regularly appointed employee in that category, class or service, as the case may be. 51- So far as the work-charged employees and casual labourers are concerned, the effort must be to regularise them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications, if any, prescribed for the post and subject also to availability of work. If a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell-say two or three is a regular need for his services. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the authority concerned to examine the feasibility of his regularisation. While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person. As has been repeatedly stressed by this Court, security of tenure is necessary for an employee to give his best to the job. In this behalf, we do commend the orders of the Government of Haryana (contained in its letter dated April 6, 1990 referred to hereinbefore) both in relation to work charged employees as well as casual labour. 3. As noticed above, the Supreme Court of India was also conscious of the difficulties of work charge and casual labourers and observed that "... in such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the authority concerned to examine the feasibility of his regularization. The observations which were made by the Supreme Court of India with regard to the Government employees, it was observed should be followed by the statutory/public corporations. 4. It would not be out of place to mention that it was Piara Singhs case, referred to above, which set the ball in motion. The observations which were made by the Supreme Court of India with regard to the Government employees, it was observed should be followed by the statutory/public corporations. 4. It would not be out of place to mention that it was Piara Singhs case, referred to above, which set the ball in motion. The Rules, Regulations and Schemes were framed by the different State Governments and so far as the State of Jammu and Kashmir is concerned. The Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers/Work Charged Employees (Regularisation) Rules, 1994, known as SRO 64/94 was brought on the Statue book. Earlier to this, Government instructions were governing some aspects of the service tenures of ad hoc employees. At this stage, it would be apt to notice Rules of 1994. These are being reproduced below :- SRO-64.-In exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to section 124 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, the Governor is pleased to make the following Rules, namely :- 1. Short title, Commencement and application -- (1) These rules may be called the Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers/Works Charged Employees (Regularisation) Rules, 1994. (2) They shall come into force with effect from 1-4-1994. (3) They shall apply to the Daily Rated Workers/Work Charged Employees engaged in any Government Department. 2. Definitions -- In these rules, unless the subject or context., otherwise requires :- (a) Administrative Department means the concerned Department in the Civil Secretariat holding the administrative control, of the Department. (b) "Casual Labour /Worker", means a person who is engaged through an appointment order or otherwise on daily rated basis for rendering casual services to a Department. (c) "Committee" means the Committee as may be constituted by the Government and for the time being means the. Committee appointed under Government Order No. 26-F of 1994 dated 31-01-1994 (d) "Competent Authority" means the Government or any other authority to whom the power may be delegated. (e) "Continuous working" means continuous working of Daily Rated Workers or Work Charged Employee after his first engagement, regardless of the fact whether wages have been paid for the Gazetted holiday/Sundays. Provided that the working shall be deemed to be continuous -if not more than one break up to two days has been given in his continuous working in a period of 90 calendar days. Provided that the working shall be deemed to be continuous -if not more than one break up to two days has been given in his continuous working in a period of 90 calendar days. (f) "Daily Rated worker" means a person engaged on daily wage basis at the rates sanctioned by the Government from time to time. (g) "Department" means a Government department. (h) "Seasonal" labour/Worker" means a person who is employed in any department for a defined season or period of a year. (i) "Wages" means all remunerations whether by way of salary, allowances, or otherwise expressed in terms of money or capable of being so expressed which would if the terms of employment expressed, or implied were fulfilled be payable to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment. (j) "Work Charged Employees" means any person employed-on a work charged establishment to do any skilled, un-skilled, manual, supervisory v technical work done in such employment. (k) "Work Charged Establishment means such establishment as is employed upon the actual execution as distinct from the general supervision of a specific work or of sub-works of a specific project or upon the subordinate supervision of departmental labour, stores, and machinery in connection with such a work or sub-works; provided that as an exception to the above, mistries and mates employed in the interest of Government on the technical supervision of contractors work and Khalasis attached to subordinates for assisting them on works-will be treated as work charged establishment. Works establishment does not include clerks, draftsmen, subordinates or extra establishment of any kind for the Sub-Divisional, Divisional Circle or Direction Offices, such being properly chargeable to temporary establishment; but where Dak Runners are employed solely for a particular work of a temporary nature for a period not exceeding six months, they may be treated as Work Charged Establishment. 3. Creation of the posts -- (1) The Committee may from time to time on receipt of proposal from any Administrative Department approve the creation of posts for the purpose of regularisation of Daily Rated Workers or Work Charged, Employees. (2) After the approval under sub-rule (1), above is conveyed to the Administrative Department, the Administrative Department concerned shall issue the orders of creation of the posts. (2) After the approval under sub-rule (1), above is conveyed to the Administrative Department, the Administrative Department concerned shall issue the orders of creation of the posts. The posts so shall be --- (a) borne on the Plan or Non Plan establishment as the classification of the scheme or work may be on which such eligible persons are deployed; and (b) in conformity with the existing sanctioned designation in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940. 4. Eligibility for regularisation -- A Daily Rated Worker/Work Charged Employee shall be eligible for regularisation on fulfillment of the following conditions; namely :-- (a) that he is a permanent resident of the State; (b) that on the date of his initial appointment his age was within the minimum and Maximum age limit, as prescribed for appointment in Government Service; (c) that he possesses the prescribed academic and/or technical qualification for the post against which he is required to be, regularised : Provided that in case of eligible Daily Rated Workers to be regularised against Class IV posts, relaxation of qualification and /or age shall be considered on merits by the concerned Administrative Department. (d) that he is not a retiree from any State or Central Government service or any Local Body, Public Sector Undertaking or Autonomous Body in or outside the State. (e) that his work and conduct has remained satisfactory during the period he worked as Daily Rated Worker or Work Charged Employee and no disciplinary proceedings are pending against him; and (f) That he has completed seven years continuous period he worked as Daily Rated Worker or Work Charged Employees and no disciplinary proceedings are pending against him; and 5. Regularisation of Daily Rated Workers -- All the Daily Rated Workers who on 31-03-1994 are eligible under rule 4 for regularisation shall with effect from 01-04-1994 be appointed on the regular pay scale of Class IV prescribed in the concerned department for the relevant category of posts in the scale of Rs 750-940; Provided that if any of the categories have higher pay scale of R.s.775-1025, such employee (s) shall be placed in the higher pay scale of Rs. 775-1025 after completion of 2 years of service in the scale of Rs 750-940. 6. 775-1025 after completion of 2 years of service in the scale of Rs 750-940. 6. Absorption of Work Charge Employees on Regular Temporary Establishment -- All the Work Charged Employees who, on 31.3.1994 fulfill all the conditions as laid down in rule 4 shall be brought on regular temporary establishment with effect from 1.4.1994 in the corresponding pay scale : Provided that if on absorption of the employee the available pay scale is lower, his pay shall be protected by creating post on regular establishment with corresponding reduction of such work Charged post, if no suitable vacancy is available. 7. Restriction on engagement of Daily Rated Workers/Work Charged Employees -- (I) With effect from the commencement of these Rules, no field/subordinate officer shall have the power of engagement of a Daily Rated Worker or Work Charged Employee in the Department and the existing delegation, if any in this regard is withdrawn : Provided that the Competent Authority may engage Casual Labour or Seasonal Labour in any of the Departments to be specified by notification from time to time by the Government and such Labour shall be on the Muster Roll for payment of wages and no engagement or appointment order shall be issued (2) After the commencement of these rules the work charged posts shall be created only by the Administrative Departments in consultation with the Finance and Planning Department. 8. Application of rules to existing Daily Rated Worker and Work Charged Employee -- The policy of absorption of Daily Rated Workers and Work Charged Employees shall also apply to such of the existing Daily Rated Workers and Work Charged Employees who may not have completed seven years on 31. 3. 1994 but may complete by the end of subsequent financial years and their absorption shall be considered in that financial year in accordance with these rules. 9. Miscellaneous -- (1) No Class IV vacancy occurring in any department where Daily Rated Workers or Work Charged Employees are adjustable under these rules shall be available for direct recruitment till Whole lot of such workers/employees is adjusted; (2) If any retired person has been engaged occurring in an y department as Daily Rated Worker, his/her service/engagement as such shall be terminated forthwith; (3) Formal orders of regularisation of Daily Rated worker and absorption of Work Charged Employee on regular temporary establishment shall be issued by the concerned Head of the Department. 10. Repeal and Savings -- All the existing rules regulations and orders excepting Government Order No. 26-F of 1994 dated 31.1.1994 relating to the matters covered-by these rules are hereby repealed: Provided that any action taken in pursuance of the rules, - regulations or orders as so repealed shall be deemed to have been taken under these rules." 5. The aforementioned rules deal with, as the, title Suggests with the Daily Rated Worker/Work Charged Employees. There is a category of other employees also. This has been described as Casual Workers. There is still another category of employees who are on the Rolls of the State but fall-within the purview of the term workmens as the term is understood under the Industrial law. The cases of these categories would also be examined. Before doing so the fate of those who came to be engaged after 31st March94 be noticed. These attracted the attention of the State Government. A Government Order bearing 1285-GKD-of 2001 dt. 6th Nov2001 was issued for facility of reference, the aforesaid order in-so-far-as relevant is being reproduced below :-- "..............Whereas in the Writ petition No. a class IV post on ad hoc basis v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors., and connected writ petitions, the Honble High Court of J&K vide its judgment dated 12,2,1998 inter-alia\observed as under :-- "I am of the opinion that he becomes entitled to regularisation in terms of the stand by respondent State that the petitioner was an ad hoc employee, and therefore, he would not be entitled to regularisation, cannot be sustained. The case of an ad-hoc employee cannot be worse than a daily rated worker. The observations-made by the. Supreme Court of India in the case, of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130 would also be attracted............" ".......... The petitioner, Uttam Singh, shall be entitled to continuity of service, He would also be entitled to all back wages and other consequential benefits." Whereas, under the Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers Regularisation Rules, 1994 A daily rated worker engaged prior to 31.1-1994, is eligible for regularisation after seven years. The petitioner, Uttam Singh, shall be entitled to continuity of service, He would also be entitled to all back wages and other consequential benefits." Whereas, under the Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers Regularisation Rules, 1994 A daily rated worker engaged prior to 31.1-1994, is eligible for regularisation after seven years. Whereas a number of appointments have also been, made on ad hoc basis, in different Government Departments and the Government is of the view that their cases also need to be considered in the light of the broad principle discussed by the Honble High Court in its, judgment referred to above i.e, they be also considered for regularization after putting in seven years continuous service like daily wagers appointed prior to 31.1.1994. Now, therefore, it is hereby ordered that all ad hoc appointment to non-gazetted posts recruited from time to time beyond 29. 12.,1988 till the date of issue of this order who are still in service be considered for regularisation after completing seven years of continuous service from the date of appointment dispensing with reference of posts held by them to Service Selection Board ......" The issues involved in these cases are :-- i As to what are the rights of an employee who came to be appointed before 31st March94; ii As to what are the rights of an employee who has completed seven years of service before 31st March 94; iii As to what are the rights of an employee who has not completed seven years of service but has continued to work; iv As to what rights have been conferred on an employee in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules; v As to what is the impact of Government Order issued on 6th Nov2001. 6. The other questions would be as to what are the rights of a workman who falls within the definition of term "workmen" under the Industrial Disputes Act and what are the rights of a casual worker whose case is not expressly covered by the Rules or by the policy decision referred to above. 7. Before proceeding to take notice of this aspect of the matter, some judicial precedents be noticed : (a) EMPLOYEE CONTINUING UNDER COURTS DIRECTION The status of an employee engaged on ad hoc basis but continuing under courts direction remains precarious. 7. Before proceeding to take notice of this aspect of the matter, some judicial precedents be noticed : (a) EMPLOYEE CONTINUING UNDER COURTS DIRECTION The status of an employee engaged on ad hoc basis but continuing under courts direction remains precarious. A person who has continued on the basis of interim order passed by the court cannot seek regularisation on this ground. See Committee of Management Arya Nagar Inter College v. Sree Kumar Tiwari, AIR 1997 SC 3071. See also State of U.P. v. Raj Karan Singh, (1998) 8 SCC wherein it was held that continuance in service on the basis of interim order does not enhance his status. If the posts are not available, then the mere fact that some-employees had continued to perform their duties would not enable them to seek the relief of regularisation. See also State of U.P. v. U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Shramil Sangh, AIR 1996 SC 708, Direction was given for making ad hoc appointments out of the waiting list, by the High Court. This appointment, was not to confer any right on the incumbents. It was observed that this is only an enabling direction to make temporary appointments pending regular recruitment. Such a direction given by the High Court was upheld in State of Haryana v. Mahabir Prasad Sharma, 1994(2) SCT 573 (b) VACANCIES NOT IN EXISTENCE An order directing regularisation can be passed only if a post exists. If vacancy does not exist, then the order of regularisation cannot be made. See State of U.P. v. Ajay Kumar, (1997) 4 SCC 88. In Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997 (4) SCT 133, after quashing the selection and appointments made in excess to the posts advertised, the court, directed the appointees to continue as an ad hoc arrangement till fresh selection is made and observed -that they may continue to remain in service till regular selection process is completed. Existence of vacancies is one of the factors which is required to be taken note of when directions are given for regularising an ad hoc employee or a daily wager. See (2001)9 SCC 394. Regulation of an appointee who has been appointed on ad hoc basis without compliance of rules can also not be ordered. See (2001) 1 SCC 37. Existence of vacancies is one of the factors which is required to be taken note of when directions are given for regularising an ad hoc employee or a daily wager. See (2001)9 SCC 394. Regulation of an appointee who has been appointed on ad hoc basis without compliance of rules can also not be ordered. See (2001) 1 SCC 37. Where an employee continues on ad hoc basis is for a sufficient long period, then this would not confer any extra benefit on him. A direct appointment to an exclusively by promotion post even if continued for a considerable period would not entitle person to seek regularisation. See Union of India v. Moti Lal, (1996) 7 SCC 481. A person-was appointed on contractual basis. His service tenure was continued from time to time on ad hoc basis. Such arrangement continued for more than one year. It was observed that this would not entitle the person concerned to seek regularisation. See Director Institute of Management Development v. Smt Pushpa Srivastava, 1992(3) SCT 742. Research Associate of University were appointed on ad hoc basis. Even though, they had continued for a long time as such, they were treated as ad hoc employees with no security of tenure. The matter, was left, to be decided by the respondent authorities with a hope that a scheme would be prepared for the adjustment of such employees. See Gopal Krishan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan,1992 (3), SCT 726. The service of the temporary teachers who had worked for three years including national break were ordered to be not terminated It was directed that, they be absorbed as and when regular vacancies arise-Karnataka State private College v State of Karnataka, 1992 (l) SCT 600. Thus mere prolonged or continuous ad hoc service does not ripen into a regular service to claim permanent or substantive status. See State of Orissa v. Dr. Prari Mohan Misra. (c) EMPLOYEES CONTINUING FOR LONG PERIODS An ad hoc appointee continuing to work for 12 years has to give place to a candidate selected in a regular selection. It was, however, observed that if the vacancies are available, the Government may consider the case of the ad hoc appointee as well for appointment against one of such vacancies subject to the approval of the Selection Committee with a further observation that the age, criteria may also be considered for relaxation. See Dr. It was, however, observed that if the vacancies are available, the Government may consider the case of the ad hoc appointee as well for appointment against one of such vacancies subject to the approval of the Selection Committee with a further observation that the age, criteria may also be considered for relaxation. See Dr. Kashinath Nagaya Ibatee v. State of Maharashtra, 1995(3) SCT 654. There is, however, a decision to the contrary. This is reported as Wali Ahmad v. State of Bihar, 1999 SCC (L&S) 734. In the above case, the employee had continued as Gauge Reader on ad hoc basis and had continued to work for 17 years. When he sought regularisation, his appointment was cancelled on the pretext that his appointment was not made in accordance with the rules and according to a circular issued on 11th June86. This Circular provided that no appointment is to be made on daily wage basis after Ist Aug85. The Supreme Court of India was of the opinion that the employee was entitled to regularisation in view of his performance of 17 years. (d) SIMILARLY SITUATED EMPLOYEES The further question which arises in some case is as to what would be the position when order of regularisation is passed in the case of some employees and persons similarly situated are left. The learned-counsel for the State submits that no writ of mandamus can be issued in this regard directing the State to grant a concession in the case of another person also. The above aspect of the matter was considered by the Supreme Court of India in the Karnataka State Private College Stop Gap Lecturers Association v. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 1992 SC 677. Ad hoc - teachers, came to be appointed in private institutions. They continued for years with break of day or two after every three months. They, were employed by privately managed Degree Colleges. They were seeking parity with the teachers of the State institutions. It was observed that the teachers of private institutions may not be able to build up any challenge based on discrimination as employees of Government Colleges and private colleges do not constitute one class. At the same time, it was observed that adoption of such policy on the part of the Government in favour of one, set of employees only is not apt. At the same time, it was observed that adoption of such policy on the part of the Government in favour of one, set of employees only is not apt. This is because it unnecessarily raise hopes and expectations in the minds of employees. This is not healthy for public service. Dealing with this situation following observations were made; "Further the State of Karnataka appears to have been regularising services of ad hoc teachers. Till now it has regularised services of contract lecturers, local candidates, University Lecturers, Engineering College lecturers etc; It may not furnish any basis for petitioners to claim that the State may be directed to issue similar order regularising services of teachers of privately managed colleges. All the same such policy decisions of government in favour of one of the other set of employees of sister department are bound to raise hopes and expectations in employees of other departments. That is why it is incumbent on governments to be more circumspect in taking such decisions. The petitioners may not be able to build up any challenge on discrimination as employees of government colleges and private colleges may not belong to the same class yet their claim cannot be negatived on the respondent stand in the counter affidavit that the regularisation of temporary teachers who have not faced selection shall impair educational standard without explaining the effect of regularisation of temporary teachers of University and even technical colleges." When some persons are wrongly regularized, then others cannot claim parity of treatment. See Urmila Devi v. State of Bihar 1999 SCC (L&S) 642. (e) APPOINTMENT MADE DEHORS THE RULES Where appointments are made dehors the rules, then regularisation cannot be. See E. Rama Krishna & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (1996) 10 SCC 555. The process of regularisation by-passing the process of recruitment through open competition would be bad-P. Ravindran v. Union Territory of Pondicherry, (1997) 1 SCC 350. The daily wagers who came to be appointed contrary to rules even though acquired temporary status were held not entitled to get their services regularised in the case of Union of India v. Moti Lal, (1996) 7 SCC 481. A person appointed dehors the rules even though working for a long period is not entitled to regularisation, See Union of India v. Bishamber Dutt, (1996) 11 SCC 341. A person appointed dehors the rules even though working for a long period is not entitled to regularisation, See Union of India v. Bishamber Dutt, (1996) 11 SCC 341. When a duly selected candidate comes to be appointed whether directly or by transfer, then the ad hoc employee has to vacate- Dr. Kishore v. State of Maharashtra, 1997 (2) SCT 147. A civil servant came to be appointed by relaxation of qualification by the competent authority under the existing rules. The rules were amended. The Committee constituted rejected the claim for regularisation. The Supreme Court of India observed that the Committee should not have rejected to claims of the incumbent on the ground of want of requisite qualification. See State of U.P. v. Dr. Deep Narian Tripathi, 1996 (2) SCT 781. An ad hoc appointee cannot remain in the respective post to the detriment of a regular selection See State of Haryana v. Rajbir Singh, 1993( 1 2) SCT 667. Again where the process of recruitment through open competition is by-passed, even then, the relief of regularisation is not to be granted. See P. Ravinderan v. Union Territory of Pondicherry, (197) l SCC 350. A daily wager who was not appointed against a regular post was not held entitled to regularisation. See Union of India v. Pradeep Kumar Saxena, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 69. Ad hoc appointments were made. In some cases, order of regularisation was passed and in other cases, it was declined. The argument raised was that in the case of similarly situated persons, some directions have been given to regularise their services. It was pleaded that same course should be adopted vis-a-vis other employees also. This was objected to by the employer. It was stated by the employer that in earlier cases, when directions were given, a difficulty arise to adjust those employees. The Supreme Court of India observed that burdening the employer with further employees would not be conducive to the financial health of the employer, See U.P. State of Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. Vijay Kumar Upadhyay, AIR 1997 SC 1778. Where the employee was not regularised because he was not a local resident this was held to be bad in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Sanjay Pant and others, AIR 1993 SC 1365. Respondents who were casual were included in a panel for appointment as Helpers. Where the employee was not regularised because he was not a local resident this was held to be bad in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Sanjay Pant and others, AIR 1993 SC 1365. Respondents who were casual were included in a panel for appointment as Helpers. The panel was valid upto 15th July94. The Division Bench of the High Court by its order dt. 12th Aug98, directed that empaneled candidates should be regularised first against the present as well as future vacancies. It was observed that the High Court should not have over-looked the Scheme but direction was given that those who were selected in the earlier test should be given preference consistent with the Scheme. See Indian Airlines Ltd. Samaresh Bhowmiok, (1996) 6 SCC 101. Voluntary workers in health services of State of Bihar were working for long at a pittance of Rs. 50/- per month. In the absence of any statutory right of regularisation, the Supreme Court directed that such persons be considered for regularisation against available posts. See-Urmila Devi v. State of Bihar, 1999 SCC (L&S) 642. When an order of regularisation was passed and when this was made in accordance with the law, then its cancellation after ten years was found to be bad in the case of Vijay Goel v. Union of India, (1998) 1 SCC 376. (f) SEASONAL EMPLOYMENT AND EMPLOYEES ENGAGED ON CONTRACT In the case of seasonal employees, the view expressed by the Supreme Court of India in the case reported as Union of India v. Vinod Shankar Tripathi, 1998 (8) SCC 583 is to the effect that the employer should consider their claims for appointment on regular basis against the existing or future vacancies. The only limitation which was imposed was that they should fulfil the requirement of the rules except upper age limit for which they were required to be granted relaxation. Thus even in the case of seasonal employees, the concept of regularisation was invoked and was required to be implemented. In the case of an employee employed under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition ) Act 1970, the principal employer can be directed to absorb these employees permanently. If need is permanent, then direction can be given to the principal, employer to see to it that employees employed by a Contractor under the aforementioned Act are absorbed Permanently. In the case of an employee employed under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition ) Act 1970, the principal employer can be directed to absorb these employees permanently. If need is permanent, then direction can be given to the principal, employer to see to it that employees employed by a Contractor under the aforementioned Act are absorbed Permanently. See Secretary, Haryana Electricity Board v. Suresh JT (1) 1999 SC 435. In this regard, it would also be apt to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd and ors v. National Union Water Front Workers and Ors., 2001 (6) Supreme 602. (g) RIGHTS OF LEGAL HEIRS OF EMPLOYEES WHOSE SERVICES NOT REGULARISED There is yet another category of persons who are legal heirs of those who were entitled to regularisation but were not so regularised. The legal heirs of such employees can seek compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment sometimes is not allowed on the plea that concerned employee is not governed by SRO 43/94. In this regard, it would be apt to notice that SRO 43/94 makes use of the word "Government servant" and therefore, even a casual or ad hoc employee would fall under, this category for the purposes of compassionate appointment. Such a person seeking compassionate appointment where the deceased had rendered 7 years of service and was entitled to the benefit of regularisation then the legal heirs of such a person would be entitled to claim compassionate appointment on the assumption that the deceased would have been regularised. A formal order would have to be passed in favour of an employee in such a case. Such situation has been considered in the case of Saroj v. State of Haryana, 1997 (1) SCT 229. The widow of the deceased ad hoc employee was seeking appointment on compassionate grounds in the, above case. This was denied on the ground that compassionate appointment can be granted only in case of death of an employee who is working on regular basis. This plea was rejected. The fact that deceased was entitled to seek regularisation was taken note of and the widow was held entitled to regularisation. Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Sureksha Rani v. State of J&K, 1999 KLJ 24. This plea was rejected. The fact that deceased was entitled to seek regularisation was taken note of and the widow was held entitled to regularisation. Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Sureksha Rani v. State of J&K, 1999 KLJ 24. This aspect of the matter would accordingly be taken note of and even in the case of those employees who were entitled to regularisation but were not regularised, the claims of their legal heirs would be considered as and when such application is preferred by them seeking compassionate appointment. (h) INDUSTRIAL WORKERS The case of Industrial workers be now examined. The fact that some department of the Government have been held to fall within the term `industry, cannot be ignored, Ratio of decision given in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajan (1978) 2 SCC 213 hits boon followed lit this regard. Public Works Department of the State of Punjab was held to be an Industry in the case of Des Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 1988 SC 1182. Telecom department of Union of India has also been held to fall within the above term. See, G.M. Telecom v. A. Srinivasa Rao, (1997) 8 SCC 767. There are several other instances. Question arises as to how the service-conditions of these employees are to be dealt with. The law is well settled that in case these employees complete more than 240 days of service in one calendar year and their services are terminated without compliance of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, then they are entitled to reinstatement with back wages. In this regard reference can be made to following decisions :-- (i) Bank of India v. N. Sunder Moni AIR 1976 SC 1111. (ii) Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Orissa (1976) 4 SCC 222. (iii) Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala, (1980)3 SCC 340. (iv) Mohan Lal v. Bharat Electronics Ltd., (1981) 1 SCC 225. (v) Karnataka SRTC v. M. Boraiah, (1984)-l SCC 244. (vi) Punjab Land Development and Reclaimation Corporation Ltd, Chandigarh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh & Ors., (1990)3 SCC 682. (iii) Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala, (1980)3 SCC 340. (iv) Mohan Lal v. Bharat Electronics Ltd., (1981) 1 SCC 225. (v) Karnataka SRTC v. M. Boraiah, (1984)-l SCC 244. (vi) Punjab Land Development and Reclaimation Corporation Ltd, Chandigarh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh & Ors., (1990)3 SCC 682. It be seen that in the matter of calculating 240 days, paid holidays and Sundays have also to be taken into consideration, In one year there-would be 52 Sundays and if these are added, then the total number of days on which a workman would have to work would be much less. For this, no proof is required. The above view was expressed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Workmen of American Express, International Banking Corporation V., Management of American Express, International Banking Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 458. It was observed that :-- "....That the qualification for relief under Section 25 F is that he should be a work man in an industry and has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer. What is continuous service has been defined and explained in Section 25-B of the Act. In view of sub Section (2) of Section 25 B, the workman shall be deemed to be in continuous service if he has actually worked under the employer for particular period. The expression actually worked under employer mean those days only when the workman worked with hammer, sickle or pen. But must necessarily comprehend all those days during which he was in the employment of the employer and for which he had been paid wages either under express or implied contract of service or by compassion of statute, standing orders etc. Thus Sundays and other paid holidays should be taken into account for the purpose of reckoning the total number of days on which the workman is said to have actually worked." With regard to the category of employees who fall within the definition of term "workmen", the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution, Division, U.P.S.E.B. Bareilly v. Hydro Electric Employees Union and Ors., (1999) l SCC 253 can be referred to Un-interrupted services were rendered for 240 days by Coolies in UPSE Board. Labour Court recorded a finding that they had completed 240 days of service and therefore, were entitled to the benefit of regularisation. This decision was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court of India did not interfere with this decision and directed that such employees be appointed within a period of six weeks as regular Coolies and work be assigned to them. They were to be treated in continuous service as regularly appointed Coolies and time scale as available to their counter parts was allowed. Therefore, to say that an employee who has worked for 240 days is remedy less, would be an argument which cannot be accepted. In the light of above judicial precedents, the issues noticed above be examined. (i) SCOPE OF SRO 64 of 1994 A plain reading or SRO 64/94, which stand reproduced above, makes it clear that an employee who is engaged as a Daily Rated Worker/Work Charge basis is entitled to regularisation terms of above SRO if he has completed more than seven years of service. There is no dispute regarding this. Again, an employee who is appointed and has continued to work has some rights. One right is Conferred by Rule 9. This is, to the effect that no direct recruitment is to be made to a Class IV vacancy, unless and until a person already appointed is regularised. This interpretation would be in line with Rules 7 and 8 when read together, Rule 8 provides that an employee is to be permitted to complete his tenure and if he so completes the same by the end of subsequent financial years, then, he is to be absorbed. Rule 8, as indicated above, stands already noticed. The words used are "financial years". Therefore, the tenure can be completed not only in the immediate following financial year but in the later years also. The fact that, plural has been used is indicative of the fact that the tenure can be completed in the financial year immediately after March94 and even in the later financial years. As indicated above, the term used is "subsequent financial years" and not year. Therefore, full meaning has to be given to term "years". Had only singular been used, then it could have been said that seven years service is supposed to be completed by 31st March 94, but this is not the position. As indicated above, the term used is "subsequent financial years" and not year. Therefore, full meaning has to be given to term "years". Had only singular been used, then it could have been said that seven years service is supposed to be completed by 31st March 94, but this is not the position. Rule 9 lays in clear terms that "no Class IV vacancy occurring in any department where daily rated workers or work charged employees are adjustable under these rules shall be available for direct recruitment till whole lot of such workers/employees is adjusted............" Therefore, the intention of the Rule is clear; first all those who have completed seven years of service by 31st March 94 are to be regularised, thereafter those who complete their seven years of tenure, in subsequent financial years are to be given this benefit. Therefore, the employees who are in service are to be permitted to complete their tenure. This benefit is conferred upon them by Rule 9. According to this Rule, no direct recruitment is to be made and no one is to be inducted unless and until, the employees already appointed are absorbed. This right has to be safe-guarded. Thus a reading of Rule 8 and 9 together would lead to the only conclusion that those persons who are already in service, their tenure is not to be brought to an end. (j) SCOPE OF GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED ON 6.11.2001 The further question is as to which is the category of employees who is entitled to get the benefit of Government Order issued on 6th Nov2001, which stands issued, on the basis of decision given by this Court in Uttam Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 1998(2) SCT 223. It be seen that Uttam Singhs case did not directly deal with the issue of regularisation. That was a case where appointments were made without resorting to the procedure of issuing a public notice. So far as Uttam Singh was concerned, the facts stand noticed in para 8 of the judgment. He was appointed in Nov90. He continued to work till 10th Sept.94. The plea raised was that he was also entitled to regularisation in terms of SRO 64/94. Taking note of the above facts and the view expressed by the Supreme. So far as Uttam Singh was concerned, the facts stand noticed in para 8 of the judgment. He was appointed in Nov90. He continued to work till 10th Sept.94. The plea raised was that he was also entitled to regularisation in terms of SRO 64/94. Taking note of the above facts and the view expressed by the Supreme. Court of India in the case of State of Haryana V. Piara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130, it was observed that if the work and conduct of the aforementioned petitioner was found good and was retained in service for four years, as to why he was not selected, was required to be elaborated. It was in this context, reference was made to Piara Singhs case. It is this decision which has assumed the shape of the Government. Order, referred to above. Therefore, that category of employees who are ad hoc and were placed at a pedestal lower than the Daily Rated Worker/Work Charged Employees, are entitled to the benefits of the Government Order, referred to above. Their claims are required to be considered in terms of the said order. (k) CASUAL EMPLOYEES The cases of casual employees be also examined In this regard, it would be apt to note the dictionary meaning of the word casual. In Blacks Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, the meaning of word casual has been defined as "occurring without "regularity", "Occassional", "impermanent" and as employment for irregular periods". A perusal of above meaning would indicate that where an employee has continued to work for sufficiently long period, then, it would not be apt to call him having been appointed on casual basis. As a matter of fact, this aspect of the matter was considered in Piara Singhs case (supra). The relevant observations made in para 51 of the judgment stand already noticed above. For facility of reference, the relevant observations made in this paragraph are being quoted again :-- "......If a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell-say two or three years a presumption may arise that there is a regular need for his services. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the authority concerned to examine the feasibility of his regularisation. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the authority concerned to examine the feasibility of his regularisation. While doing so, the authorities Ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person..........." Thus, if the State Government has decided to comply with the judgment given in Piara Singhs case in the case of Daily Rated/Work Charged employees, then, it would be apt to take notice of the view expressed by the Supreme Court vis-a-vis casual labourers also. In this regard reference can also be made to the decision of the Supreme, Court in the case of V.M. Chandra v. Union of India, (1999) 4 SCC 62. The view taken that a Casual labourer has no designation was found to be a view which was not correct. In the case of casual worker, keeping in view the, length of service which was more than, five year and technical qualification possessed, the employer was directed to regularise his services. See V.M. Chandras case (supra). In the case of Govt. of Tamil Nadu v. G. Mohd. Ammenudeen, (1997) 7 SCC 499, the directions were given to frame some Scheme. Therefore, the State Government would take notice of the above and frame a scheme regarding regularisation of those employees failing under the category of "Casual labourers". (l) APPOINTMENT ALLEGED TO BE MADE BY INCOMPETENT AUTHORITY There is yet another aspect of the matter. It is sometime stated that the appointment was not made by the competent authority, and therefore, in such circumstances, the employee has no right to continue. In this regard reference can be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. Chandigarh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh and ors., (1990)3 SCC 682. In the above, case, the service of the employee concerned were terminated on the ground that the order of appointment was not made by the Competent Authority. Notwithstanding the above plea raised by the employer, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the order of termination is bad. This order was challenged in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The view expressed by the Labour Court was sustained. When the matter came before the Supreme Court of India, it did not interfere with the view expressed by the Labour Court. This order was challenged in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The view expressed by the Labour Court was sustained. When the matter came before the Supreme Court of India, it did not interfere with the view expressed by the Labour Court. In this regard, it is concluded that a workman has no concern with the source of appointment. If an order is issued, then what transpired before issuance of order is not the concern of the employee in whose favour the order is passed. The position may be different if the employee is a party or is in collusion with the authority issuing the letter of appointment. Otherwise, as indicated above, the employee has no concern with the question as to the appointment having not been made by the competent authority. 8. It is accordingly concluded :-- i That an employee who has completed seven years of service before 31st March94 is entitled to regularisation in terms of SRO 64/94; ii That the employees who were engaged before 31st March `94 but have not completed seven years of service are entitled to the benefit of regularisation after completion of this-tenure in the later financial years. This becomes apparent from the perusal of Rule 8 and 9 of the Rules referred-to above; iii That a further right stands conferred on the employees who have been engaged on daily rated/work charged basis. This right is conferred by Rule 9. This is to the effect that no direct recruitment is to be made unless and until the claims of the persons already appointed are duly considered for regularisation; iv That the case of those employees who were not, strictly speaking covered by SRO 64/94 are now to be dealt with in terms of the Government order dt. 6th Nov2001; v That so far as the industrial workers are concerned, they are entitled to the protection of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and in case, they have completed 240 days of service and in case, their services are to be brought to an end, then the provisions of Section 25-F of the aforesaid Act are required to be complied with; vi That the fact that someone has been appointed contrary to the rules is an issue which is to be decided on the facts of each case. In case, it is shown that there was some collusion between the employee and the person issuing the appointment order, something can be said against the employee, otherwise, the concerned employee would normally be entitled to the benefit of the order passed in his favour; vii That so far as the casual employees are concerned, they are not regulated by the rules in question but the fact would remains that an employee who has completed a tenure of four years and in case, the need is permanent, then, the said employee would be protected by the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Piara Singhs judgment (supra). Paragraph 51 stands quoted above. The State Government would accordingly consider the claims of this category of employees and deal with them individually or frame a scheme in this regard; viii That a Government employee can also fall within the definition of workman; ix That even in the case of employee who is working with a contractor under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, direction can be given to the Principal employer to bring the employee on its rolls; x That even in the case of seasonal employee, direction for regularisation of services can be given under circumstances noticed above; xi That an employee who is engaged under a scheme can be adjusted in another suitable, work if it is possible to do so. However, no vested right exist in that person; xii That an employee working under the courts directions acquires no right to claim regularisation; xiii That if similarly situated employees services are regularised, then direction can be given for regularising services of others also; xiv That an employee who has been appointed dehors the rules or does not possess the qualifications cannot claim regularisation. xv That a person can claim compassionate appointment if the deceased employee was entitled to regularisation but was not so regularised. 9. Now the decision under appeal be examined. In a batch of writ petitions bearing SWPs No. 634/2000, 721/2000, 2314/2000, 512/2000, 244/2001, 531/2001,558/2001, 922/2001, 1116/2001, 1267/2001, 1061/2001, 1615/2001, 931/2001,1696/2001, 1331/2001, 386/2001,1423/2001, 864-A/2001, 1734/2001, 1330/2001, 1603/2001, 1012/2001, 628/2001, 1394/2001 and 2014/2001, which petitions were decided by a common judgment and which judgment is under appeal in these bunch of appeals, the learned Single Judge has arrived at three conclusion. In a batch of writ petitions bearing SWPs No. 634/2000, 721/2000, 2314/2000, 512/2000, 244/2001, 531/2001,558/2001, 922/2001, 1116/2001, 1267/2001, 1061/2001, 1615/2001, 931/2001,1696/2001, 1331/2001, 386/2001,1423/2001, 864-A/2001, 1734/2001, 1330/2001, 1603/2001, 1012/2001, 628/2001, 1394/2001 and 2014/2001, which petitions were decided by a common judgment and which judgment is under appeal in these bunch of appeals, the learned Single Judge has arrived at three conclusion. These are as under :-- i. The Daily Rated Workers who have been engaged on or before 31-01-1994, are permitted to continue till they attain eligibility for regularisation of the services provided they have been working continuously and uninterruptedly till date; ii. The respondents will regularise the services of the petitioners who have been engaged before 31.01.1994; iii. The petitioners who have been engaged after 31,01.1994, their engagement being dehors Order No. 26-F of 1994 and provisions of SRO 64 of 1994, are not found entitled to the relief." 10. A perusal of the above would indicate that there can be no dispute with the proposition propounded by the learned Single Judge at Serial No. (i) and (ii) above. As a matter of fact, this is the purpose for which SRO 64/94 was brought on the statute book. Again, there can be no dispute with the proposition that all those employees who happen to complete their seven years tenure after the promulgation of the Rules are also entitled to regularisation as and when they complete this tenure of seven years. This Interpretation is in line with what we have said while interpreting Rule 8 and 9 of the Rules. As a matter of fact, no direct recruitment is to be made till those who fall in category (ii) stand regularised. This is provided by Rule 9, of the Rules; 11. The dispute is vis-a-vis proposition at S.No.. (iii) above. Those who have been engaged after 31st Jan194, have been found to be engaged dehors the Rules, and therefore, they have been found not entitled to any relief. 12. In this regard, all that is required to be said is that before the above decision was given, the Government Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001 dt. 6th Nov2001, had come into existence and the right of some of the employees falling in this category have been governed. 12. In this regard, all that is required to be said is that before the above decision was given, the Government Order No. 1285-GAD of 2001 dt. 6th Nov2001, had come into existence and the right of some of the employees falling in this category have been governed. The aforesaid Government Order clearly makes mention of, the fact that all ad hoc appointees to non-gazetted posts recruited from time to time beyond 29th Dec `88 till the date of issue of aforesaid order and who are still in service would be considered for regularisation after they complete their tenure of seven years of continuous service. Therefore, regarding those employees who fall under the category of the said Government. Order, the respondents are directed to take a decision and pass appropriate orders. We accordingly observe that those employees who are found to be covered by SI.No.(iii) as observed by the learned Single Judge, their cases would be considered in terms of the Government Order dt. 6th Nov2001 and appropriate decision, as indicated above would be taken by the respondents. The case of each individual worker would be considered. Each individual appellant would prefer a representation before the respondent authorities indicating as to how he/she is covered by the above Government Order. As indicated above, the respondents would consider each individual case and in case, It is to be rejected then a speaking order would be passed. 13. In addition to the above, we also observe that the cases of casual workers would be considered In the light of the decision given by the Supreme Court In Piara Singhs case (supra). If such employees have completed a fairly long spell i.e. two to three years as has been mentioned in paragraph 51 of the judgment in Piara Singhs case, then the further observations made by the Supreme Court, in the said paragraph which stand noticed above, would be taken note of by the respondents and appropriate steps would be taken to consider the claims of such employees. The State Government is also left free to frame such scheme as may be deemed proper so far as the above category of employees is concerned. This direction is in line with the direction given by the Supreme Court of India in Piara Singhs case, referred to above. The State Government is also left free to frame such scheme as may be deemed proper so far as the above category of employees is concerned. This direction is in line with the direction given by the Supreme Court of India in Piara Singhs case, referred to above. Needless to mention that the judgment of the Supreme Court is the law of the land and binding on all concern. With regard to those employees who fall under the category workmen the law is well settled. If the workman has completed more than 240 days of service, then, he is -entitled to the benefit of Section 25-F. He is also entitled to Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947, As a matter of fact what is said in 25-H of the Act finds included in Rule 9. Therefore, whenever, an employee who falls within the definition of term workmen his services are brought to an end, then the least which is required is to comply with section 25-F of the aforesaid Act. 14. There may be cases which involve disputed questions of fact. On these a decision has to be taken by the respondents. These disputed questions of fact may again beyond the purview of the Judicial review in writ, Jurisdiction. In such case, the employees in case, the decision goes against them, are left free to pursue their remedies in industrial forum or any other forum available to them. As and when any prayer is made for referring the dispute, the same would be considered by the appropriate Government. Needless to mention that termination of service gives rise to an industrial dispute and an individual worker can seek remedies under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, as indicated above, as and when any prayer is made for referring the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal or for that matter to the Labour Court, the appropriate Government would consider the same and refer the matter to the aforesaid Tribunal. This is because, the appropriate Government is not to go into the merits of the controversy but has to be refer the dispute to the Industrial. Tribunal The position of law in this regard is clear. In Bombay Union of Journalists and others v. The State of Bombay and another, AIR 1964 SC 1617. This is because, the appropriate Government is not to go into the merits of the controversy but has to be refer the dispute to the Industrial. Tribunal The position of law in this regard is clear. In Bombay Union of Journalists and others v. The State of Bombay and another, AIR 1964 SC 1617. Supreme Court observed that the Government was precluded from/taking a prima-facie examination on the merits of the dispute while considering whether a reference was necessary or not. It was observed as under :--- " But it would not be possible to accept the plea that the appropriate Government is precluded from considering even prima facie the merits of the dispute when it decides the question as to whether its power to make a reference should be exercised under Section 10(l) read with Section 12(5) or not. If the claim made is patently frivolous or is clearly belated the appropriate Government may refuse to make a reference. Likewise, if the impact of the claim on the general relations between the employer and the employees in the region is likely to be adverse the appropriate Government may take that into account in deciding whether a reference should be made or not." 15. The above, however, is not the entire statement of law. In a later portion it was further observed as under :-- "Similarly on disputed questions of fact the appropriate Government cannot purport to reach final conclusions for that again would be province of the Industrial. Tribunal." 16. Thus, the appropriate Government can examine the limited, issues which may fall within the parameters indicated in case of Bombay Union of Journalists (supra). However, the proposition is well settled that the appropriate Government cannot reach the final conclusion on merits. This is because this falls with in the domain of the authorities constituted under the Act. 17. It is accordingly observed that the judgment under appeal so far as condition No, (i) and (ii) are concerned, is sustained. With regard to condition No. (iii) a direction is given that tile respondents would take notice of the observations made in this judgment and take appropriate, steps within a period of six months from the date, a copy of this order `is made available to them by the appellants. 18. Disposed of as such.