ORDER 1. Apart from the conflicting opinions between the three - Judge Bench decisions in Ashwani Kumar v. State of Bihar1, State of Haryana v. Piara Singh2 and Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Assn. v. State of Karnataka3 on the one hand and State of H.P. v. Suresh Kumar Venna4, State of Punjab v. Surinder Kumar5 and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka6 on the other, which have been brought out in one of the judgments under appeal of the Karnataka High Court in State of Karnataka v. H. Ganesh Rao7, decided on 1 - 6 - 2001 the learned Additional Solicitor General urged that the scheme for regularisation is repugnant to Articles 16(4), 309, 320 and 335 of the Constitution and, therefore, these cases are required to be heard by a Bench of five learned Judges (Constitution Bench). 2. On the other hand, Mr. M.C. Bhandare, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the employees urged that such a scheme for regularisation is consistent with the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 3. Mr. V. Lakshmi Narayan, learned counsel appearing in CCs Nos. 109 - 498 of 2003, has filed the GO dated 19 - 7 - 2002 and submitted that the orders have already been implemented. 4. After having found that there is conflict of opinion between the three - Judge Bench decisions of this Court, we are of the view that these cases are required to be heard by a Bench of five learned Judges. 5. Let these matters be placed before the Honble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.