JUDGMENT A. K. PATNAIK, J. — The petitioners in these batch of writ petitions originally joined as N.M.R. Junior Engineers in the Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited (for short, ‘the Corporation’). Some of the casual/N.M.R. employees of the Corpo¬ration filed writ petitions before this Court for regularisation of their service in the Corporation and this Court directed the Corporation to prepare a scheme on rational basis for absorbing the casual/daily rated workers who had completed one year of service under the Corporation. The matter was thereafter carried to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals No. 3615-3622 of 1991 and No. 1701-1705 of 1992 and the Supreme Court modified the decision of the High Court holding that the Corporation would prepare a scheme on rational basis for absorbing casual/daily rated workers who have completed five years of service under the Corporation. Thereafter, a scheme for absorbing N.M.R. employees of the Corpo¬ration who had rendered five years of service or more under the Corporation was prepared by the Corporation and sent to the Government of Orissa, Rural Development Department for approval. By letter dated 25.8.1994 of the Government of Orissa, Rural Development Department, the said scheme for absorption of 4422 N.M.R. employees in the regular establishment by 2001 A.D. was approved by the Government subject to certain conditions. In the meanwhile some of the N.M.R. Junior Engineers who had not been regularised filed O.J.C. No. 6882 of 1993 before this Court for a direction to regularise their services in terms of the scheme formulated by the Corporation. In judgment dated 18.7.1994 in O.J.C. No. 6882 of 1993, this Court found that the Corporation had formulated the scheme for regularisation of Junior Engineers and was making efforts for regularisation of service of the N.M.R. employees and, therefore, did not think it necessary to issue a direction in that regard. When the services of the N.M.R. employees were not regularised and instead fresh recruitments of Junior Engineers were made in 1994, 1995 and 1996 by the Corpora¬tion, some of them again filed writ petitions O.J.C. No. 2436 of 1995, O.J.C. No. 2102 of 1996 and O.J.C. No. 2105 of 1996 praying for direction to the Corporation for regularisation of their service and these writ petitions were heard analogously and dis¬posed of by a common judgment dated 9.8.1999 by this Court. The operative part of the same common judgment dated 9.8.1999 is quoted herein below : “Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that there is substance in the contention of Sri Dora. In view of the fact that the opp. parties have conceded that the petitioners would be regularised in a phased manner, we would therefore, dispose of the writ petition with the direction that before regularising the services of the petitioners, the opp. parties will not make fresh recruitments of Jr. Engineers in Civil, Mechanical and Electrical Division on contract or temporary or no other basis or by any other mode”. 2. Thereafter, the three petitioners in O.J.C. No. 7289 of 2000 who were working as N.M.R. Junior Engineers (Electrical) since 1990 and 1992 were appointed as regular Junior Engineers (Electrical) provisionally for one year on ad hoc basis by order dated 21.6.2000 and 14.7.2000 of the Managing Director of the Corporation, but within a few days, by order dated 29.7.2000 of the Managing Director of the Corporation, their aforesaid ap¬pointments were cancelled on the ground that the Corporation was facing heavy financial crisis. Aggrieved, the said three peti¬tioners in O.J.C. No. 7289 of 2000 have prayed for quashing the said order dated 29.7.2000 of the Managing Director of the Corpo¬ration cancelling their appointments as regular Junior Engineers and for issuing such other directions/orders as this Court would deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. In O.J.C. No. 7159 of 2000, that two petitioners who were working as N.M.R. Junior Engineers (Mechanical) since 1990 were appointed as regular Junior Engineers (Mechanical) provi¬sionally for one year on ad hoc basis by order dated 13.7.2000 of the Managing Director of the Corporation, but thereafter, by order dated 29.7.2000 of the Managing Director of the Corporation the said appointments of the petitioners as regular Junior Engi¬neers (Mechanical) were cancelled on the ground that the Corpora¬tion was facing heavy financial crisis. Aggrieved, the petition¬ers have filed the writ petition for quashing the said order of cancellation of their appointments as Junior Engineers (Mechani¬cal) and for directing the opp. parties to allow the petitioners to continue as the regular Junior Engineers (Mechanical) under the Corporation with all financial and consequential service benefits. 4. Aggrieved, the petition¬ers have filed the writ petition for quashing the said order of cancellation of their appointments as Junior Engineers (Mechani¬cal) and for directing the opp. parties to allow the petitioners to continue as the regular Junior Engineers (Mechanical) under the Corporation with all financial and consequential service benefits. 4. The petitioner in O.J.C. No. 7161 of 2000 who was working as N.M.R. Junior Engineer (Civil) since 1990 was appoint¬ed as regular Junior Engineer (Civil) on provisional basis until further orders by order dated 29.6.2000 of the Managing Director of the Corporation, but by order dated 29.7.2000 of the Managing Director of the Corporation his appointment as regular Junior Engineer (Civil) was cancelled with immediate effect on the ground that the Corporation was facing heavy financial crisis. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order dated 29.7.2000 cancelling his appointment as regular Junior Engineer (Civil) and for a direc¬tion on the opp. parties to allow the petitioner to continue as such regular Junior Engineer (Civil) with all financial and consequential service benefits. 5. The seven petitioners in O.J.C. No. 7186 of 2000 who were working as N.M.R. Junior Engineers (Electrical) since 1990 were appointed as regular Junior Engineers (Electrical) by orders dated 13.7.2000 and 14.7.2000 of the Managing Director of the Corporation, but soon thereafter, their appointments were can¬celled by order dated 29.7.2000 by the Managing Director of the Corporation on the ground that the Corporation was facing heavy financial crisis. Aggrieved, the seven petitioners have filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the said order cancelling their regular appointments and for issuing such other directions as the Court would deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The four petitioners in O.J.C. No. 7325 of 2000 who were working as N.M.R. Junior Engineers (Civil) since 1991 and 1992 were appointed as regular Junior Engineers (Civil) by order dated 14.7.2000 of the Managing Director of the Corporation. But within a few days thereafter by order dated 29.7.2000 of the Managing Director of the Corporation, the said appointments were cancelled on the ground that the Corporation was facing heavy financial crisis. But within a few days thereafter by order dated 29.7.2000 of the Managing Director of the Corporation, the said appointments were cancelled on the ground that the Corporation was facing heavy financial crisis. Aggrieved, the four petitioners have filed the writ petition for quashing the said order dated 29.7.2000 of the Managing Director of the Corporation cancelling their regular appointments as Junior Engineers (Civil) and for allowing all consequential service benefits to the petitioners as regular employees with effect from 29.7.2000. 7. In O.J.C. No. 404 of 2001, the petitioner No. 1 who was working as N.M.R. Junior Engineer (Mechanical) since 1990 was appointed as regular Junior Engineer (Mechanical) provisionally for six months by order dated 16.11.1998 of the Managing Director of the Corporation and the petitioner No. 2 who was working as N.M.R. Junior Engineer (Electrical) since 1990 was appointed as regular Junior Engineer (Electrical) provisionally for six months by order dated 30.11.1998 of the Managing Director of the Corpo¬ration. Thereafter, their appointments as regular Junior Engi¬neers were extended for another one year by order dated 30.5.2000 and order dated 1.7.2000 respectively of the Managing Director of the Corporation. After expiry of the said period of one year, their appointments as regular Junior Engineers were not extended and they were not given the benefits of regular employees of the Corporation. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the writ petition for a direction to the opp. parties to regularise their services and to pay them yearly increments and other facilities as are granted to the regular employees of the Corporation right from the date of their initial appointments. 8. In O.J.C. No. 10459 of 2001, the petitioner No.1 was working as N.M.R. Junior Engineer (Electrical) since 1990 and petitioners Nos.2 and 3 were working as N.M.R. Junior Engineers (Civil) since 1990. By order dated 9.6.1999 of the Managing Director of the Corporation, the petitioners No. 1 was appointed as regular Junior Engineer (Electrical) provisionally for six months. By order dated 21.6.2000 of the Managing Director of the Corporation, the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 were appointed as regu¬lar Junior Engineers (Civil) provisionally for six months. After expiry of the said period of six months, the petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were allowed to continue for a further period of one year by orders dated 26.5.2000. 4.7.2000 and 18.7.2000 respectively of the Managing Director of the Corporation. After expiry of the said period of six months, the petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were allowed to continue for a further period of one year by orders dated 26.5.2000. 4.7.2000 and 18.7.2000 respectively of the Managing Director of the Corporation. After the expiry of said period of one year, the services of the petitioners as regular Junior Engineers have not been extended and the petition¬ers have not been paid their salary and other service benefits as regular Junior Engineers. Aggrieved, the three petitioners have filed the writ petition for directing the Corporation to confirm them as regular Junior Engineers from the date of their initial appointments and for declaration that they are entitled to all service benefits like G.P.F., G.I.S., increments etc. as are available to other regular employees of the Corporation. 9. The petitioners in O.J.C. No. 15241 of 2001 who was working as N.M.R. Junior Engineer (Mechanical) since 1990 was appointed as regular Junior Engineer (Mechanical) for six months by order dated 10.6.1999 of the Managing Director of the Corpora¬tion. Thereafter, by order dated 18.7.2000, his appointment as regular Junior Engineer (Mechanical) was extended for a further period of one year. After expiry of the said period of one year, however, his appointment as regular Junior Engineer (Mechanical) was not extended and the petitioner was not paid his salary and other service benefits as such regular Junior Engineer (Mechani¬cal). Aggrieved, the petitioners has filed the writ petition for directing the opp. parties to confirm him as regular Junior Engineer (Mechanical) from the date of his initial appointment and to declare that he is entitled to all service benefits like increments, C.P.F. G.I.S. at par with other employees of the Corporation. 10. All the aforesaid writ petitions were heard by us analogously. Mr. G.A.R. Dora, learned counsel for the petitioners in O.J.C. No. 7289 of 2000 submits that the petitioners were originally appointed on N.M.R. basis and their services were utilised by the Corporation for several years and it is not fair and reasonable on the part of the Corporation not to regularise their services. Mr. G.A.R. Dora, learned counsel for the petitioners in O.J.C. No. 7289 of 2000 submits that the petitioners were originally appointed on N.M.R. basis and their services were utilised by the Corporation for several years and it is not fair and reasonable on the part of the Corporation not to regularise their services. He further submitted that pursuant to the direction of this Court and the Supreme Court, a scheme for regularisa¬tion of N.M.R/casual employees of the Corporation who had com¬pleted five years of service had been framed by the Corporation and when the services of the petitioners were not regularised, the petitioners moved this Court in O.J.C. No. 6882 of 1993 and this Court did not issue any direction in the said O.J.C. No. 6882 of 1993 since the Corporation had already framed its scheme for regularisation of N.M.R. employees who had completed more than five years of service and the Corporation had assured the Court that it was taking steps for regularisation of the services of such employees. But, thereafter, when the Corporation started taking steps for making fresh recruitment without regularising the services of the petitioners, the petitioners again moved this Court in O.J.C. No. 2102 of 1996 which was disposed of by order dated 9.8.1999 directing that the Corporation will not make fresh recruitment of Junior Engineers in Civil, Mechanical and Electri¬cal Division on contract or temporary or any other basis or mode before regularising the services of the petitioners, Pursuant to the said judgments of the Court in O.J.C. No. 6882 of 1993 and O.J.C. No. 2102 of 1996, the petitioners were appointed as regu¬lar Junior Engineers. But soon thereafter, their appointments were cancelled by the impugned orders on the ground that the Corporation was facing heavy financial crisis. Mr. Dora vehement¬ly argued that the plea taken by the Corporation that it was suffering from heavy financial crisis on account of which it cannot continue the petitioners as regular Junior Engineers is totally a false plea. He referred to copies of various appoint¬ment orders annexed to the rejoinders affidavit as Annexure-11 series to show that several Junior Engineers have been appointed on regular basis by the Corporation from time to time during the years 1994, 1995 and 1996. Mr. He referred to copies of various appoint¬ment orders annexed to the rejoinders affidavit as Annexure-11 series to show that several Junior Engineers have been appointed on regular basis by the Corporation from time to time during the years 1994, 1995 and 1996. Mr. Dora submitted that after the Supreme Court disposed of the Civil Appeals with the direction to frame a scheme for regularisation of casual/N.M.R. employees of the Corporation who had completed five years of service and after the judgments of this Court in O.J.C. No. 6882 of 1993 and O.J.C. No. 2102 of 1996, the Corporation had no option but to appoint the petitioners as such regular Junior Engineers and the cancel¬lation of their appointments as such regular Junior Engineers by the impugned orders is arbitrary and illegal and contrary to the directions of the High Court and the Supreme Court. The aforesaid arguments of Mr. Dora were adopted by Mr. J. K Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner in O.J.C. No. 7161 of 2000, Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners in O.J.C. No. 7325 of 2000, Mr. P. K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners in O.J.C. No. 404 of 2001 and Mr. J. K. Mishra-2, learned counsel for the petitioners in O.J.C. No. 10459 of 2001. Mr. D. N. Lenka, learned counsel for the petitioners in O.J.C. No. 7186 of 2000 cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar and others, AIR 2001 S.C. 706 in support of his contention that financial crisis cannot be a ground for not regularising the services of the petitioners. 11. Mr. Jitamitra Mohanty, learned counsel for the Corpora¬tion, on the other hand, relying on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opp. parties in O.J.C. No. 7186 of 2000, submitted that pursuant to the direction of this Court and the Supreme Court, the Corporation has formulated a scheme for regularisation of its N.M.R. workers who have completed five years of continuous service in the Corpo¬ration and in accordance with the said scheme, N.M.R. Workers have been regularised in a phased manner i.e., 1029 N.M.R. work¬ers have been regularised during 1994-95, 858 N.M.R. workers have been regularised during 1995-96, 488 N.M.R. workers have been regularised during 1996-97 and 589 N.M.R. workers have been regu¬larised 1997-98. But presently, the Corporation was facing seri¬ous financial constraints due to reduction of budgetary provision by the State Government and the Corporation is unable to pay the salary of its employees since long. Mr. Mohanty, next submitted relying on the said counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation in O.J.C. No. 7186 of 2000 that the Managing Director of the Corporation had regularised the services of the petition¬ers without following the provisions of the scheme for regulari¬sation. He explained that as per the scheme. N.M.R. employees are to be regularised in a phased manner according to their date of engagement in the Corporation, but while considering the case of the petitioners for regularisation, N.M.Rs. who joined earlier than the petitioners have not been taken into consideration. Therefore, the orders of the then Managing Director of the Corpo¬ration were reviewed by the State Government and it was decided to cancel the appointment orders of the petitioners and all other appointments made contrary to the rules by the Ex-Managing Direc¬tor of the Corporation, namely, Mr. Narayan Nayak who retired from Government service on 31.7.2000. Mr. Mohanty further submit¬ted that the Corporation has already moved the State Government in the Water Resources Department to accord necessary permission and to provide required funds to regularise the services of the remaining N.M.R. workers whose services have not been regularised till date due to paucity of funds and subject to the Government according permission and making the funds available, the Corpora¬tion can consider the cases of eligible N.M.Rs for regularisa¬tion. Finally, Mr. Mohanty referred to the letter dated 23.11.2001 of the Government of Orissa Finance Department, containing the Government decision to abolish all base level and other vacancies as a measure of fiscal reforms. He submitted that by the said letter, restrictions have been put on filling up different vacancies by regular recruitment. He submitted that the World Bank and different funding agencies are also pressing hard to down-size the man power in the Corporation by way of VRS or retrenchment and these are some practical difficulties which are being faced by the Corporation in regularising the N.M.R. employees as per the scheme framed by the Corporation. 12. He submitted that the World Bank and different funding agencies are also pressing hard to down-size the man power in the Corporation by way of VRS or retrenchment and these are some practical difficulties which are being faced by the Corporation in regularising the N.M.R. employees as per the scheme framed by the Corporation. 12. In view of the stand taken in the counter affidavit of the Corporation in O.J.C. No. 7186 of 2000 that the Corporation had moved the State Government in the Water Resources Department to accord necessary permission to provide required funds to regularise the services of rest of the N.M.R. employees and that the regularisation orders issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation were cancelled after review pursuant to the orders passed by the Chairman of the Corporation and the State Govern¬ment, we passed orders on 27.9.2002 recorded in the Order sheet of O.J.C. No. 7186 of 2000 calling upon Shri S. K. Das, learned Addl. Government Advocate to explain as to why after having approved the scheme by letter dated 25.8.1994 in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation in O.J.C. No. 7186 of 2000, the Government has not provided the required funds for regularisation/absorption of N.M.R./casual employees of the Corporation and adjourned the hearing of the writ petitions to 10.10.2002. A copy of the order passed on 27.9.2002 was also delivered to Mr. S. K. Das, learned Addl. Government Advocate to enable him to obtain instruction from the Government. But when the matter was taken up for further hearing on 6.11.2002 the learned Addl. Government Advocate intimated the Court that he had not received any instruction from the Govern¬ment. Since the cases were part heard matters and have been heard at length on earlier occasions, the cases were reserved for judg¬ment. 13. The discussion of the facts of the individual cases above would show that in some of the cases, the Managing Director of the Corporation first issued orders appointing the petitioners as regular junior Engineers and thereafter issued orders on the direction of the Chairman of the Corporation and the State Gov¬ernment cancelling the said appointments. Although in the said cancellation orders, the Managing Director had indicated heavy financial crisis in the Corporation as the reason for cancella¬tion, a different reason is given in the counter affidavit. Although in the said cancellation orders, the Managing Director had indicated heavy financial crisis in the Corporation as the reason for cancella¬tion, a different reason is given in the counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed in O.J.C. No. 7186 of 2000 that the Managing Director of the Corporation regularised the services of the petitioners without following the provisions of the scheme for regularisation inasmuch as contrary to the scheme for regularisation as framed by the Corporation, N.M.Rs. who had joined the Corporation earlier than the petitioners were considered for regularisation whereas the petitioners who had joined the Corporation later were regularised in service by the Managing Director of the Corporation. The Scheme for absorption of N.M.R. employees of the Corporation as framed by the Corporation and as approved by the Government has been annexed to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opp. parties 1 to 3 in O.J.C. No. 7186 of 2000. Paragraph-4 and 5 of the said scheme for regularisation are extracted herein below : “4. Thus, the entire strength of casual employees would be brought over to regular establishment by 2001 A.D. in phases. 5. The different phases of absorption is indicated below : (a) 1029 NMR employees who have completed 10 years of serv¬ice by 31.12.1991 will be considered for conversion to regular establishment during 1994-95. (b) 858 Nos. of NMR employees who have completed more than 10 years of service as on 31.12.92 will be eligible for absorp¬tion in regular establishment during 1995-96. (c) The employees who have completed 10 years of service as on 31.12.93 will be considered for absorption in regular establishment during 1996-97. Their number is 488. (d) The employees who have completed 10 years of service from 31.12.94 to 31.12.95 numbering 589 will be considered for absorption in regular establishment during 1997-98. (e) The employees who have completed 10 years of service from 31.12.96 to 31.12.99 numbering 499 will be considered for absorption in regular establishment during 1998-99. (f) 697 nos. of NMR employees who have completed 10 years of service as on 2000 A.D. will be considered for absorption in regular establishment during 1999-2000. (e) The employees who have completed 10 years of service from 31.12.96 to 31.12.99 numbering 499 will be considered for absorption in regular establishment during 1998-99. (f) 697 nos. of NMR employees who have completed 10 years of service as on 2000 A.D. will be considered for absorption in regular establishment during 1999-2000. (g) After taking into account the above NMR employees, there will be 262 NMR employees left out, who would have completed 5 years of continuous service from 31.12.2001 to 31.12.2004 who will be brought into regular establishment by 2000-2001 A.D.” It will be clear from a reading of the aforesaid paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Scheme that the entire strength of the casual employees of the Corporation was to be brought over to the regular estab¬lishment by 2001 A.D. in phases and the employees who had com¬pleted ten years of service were to be regularised first in phases and of those employees who had completed ten years of service, those who had completed ten years of service earlier, were to be regularised before those who had completed ten years of service later. Paragraph-5 of the scheme further shows that after the N.M.R. employees who had completed ten years of service were regularised, the 262 N.M.R. employees left out who had completed five years of continuous service from 31.12.2001 to 31.12.2004 were to be brought into regular establishment by 2000-2001 A.D. The High Court as well as the Supreme Court directed the Corporation to frame a scheme for regularisation of its N.M.R. employees who had completed five years of service and in accordance with the said directions, the Corporation had framed a scheme for regularisation of its employees. The scheme was ra¬tional and fair inasmuch as it provided for regularisation of those N.M.R. employees who had joined the Corporation earlier first before regularisation of those N.M.R. employees who had joined the Corporation later. Any regularisation by the Managing Director of the Corporation of N.M.R. employees who joined the Corporation later while not considering the cases on N.M.R. employees who had joined the Corporation earlier would obviously be unfair and discriminatory. Since as stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opp. Any regularisation by the Managing Director of the Corporation of N.M.R. employees who joined the Corporation later while not considering the cases on N.M.R. employees who had joined the Corporation earlier would obviously be unfair and discriminatory. Since as stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opp. parties 1 to 3 in O.J.C. No. 7186 of 2000, the Managing Director of the Corporation had regularised the services of the petitioners without considering the cases of N.M.Rs who had joined earlier that the petitioners, the order issued by the State Government and the Chairman of the Corporation for cancellation of their appointments as regular Junior Engineers and the consequent orders of the Managing Direc¬tor of the Corporation cancelling the appointments of the peti¬tioners or the consequent inaction on the part of the Managing Director of the Corporation in not extending the services of the petitioners cannot be held to be arbitrary and unfair and viola¬tive of Article 14 of the Constitution. 14. The next question to be decided is whether the impugned orders passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation cancel¬ling the appointments of the petitioners as regular Junior Engi¬neers or the impugned inaction on the part of the Managing Direc¬tor of the Corporation in not extending the services of the petitioners as regular Junior Engineer violated the directions of this Court as well as the Supreme Court. The High Court and the Supreme Court had directed that the Corporation would prepare a scheme on rational basis for absorption of casual/daily rated workers who had completed five years of service in the Corpora¬tion. Pursuant to the said directions of the High Court and the Supreme Court the Corporation had framed the scheme for absorp¬tion of casual/daily rated workers including N.M.R. employees, In O.J.C. No. 6882 of 1993 this Court in its judgment dated 18.7.1995 took note of the said scheme for regularisation of the N.M.R. employees of the Corporation and did not think it neces¬sary to issue any direction. In the common judgment dated 9.8.1999 in O.J.C. No. 2436 of 1995 O.J.C. No. 2102 of 1996 and O.J.C. No. 2105 of 1996, however, the Court took note of the concession made by the Corporation that the petitioners would be regularised in a phased manner and thereafter, disposed of the writ petitions with the direction that before regularising the services of the petitioners the opp. parties will not make fresh recruitments of Junior Engineers in Civil, Mechanical and Electri¬cal Division on contract or temporary or any other basis or by any other made. Hence, as per the aforesaid directions of the Supreme Court and this Court, the N.M.R. employees were to be regularised in a phased manner in accordance with the scheme for regularisation. This would mean that those who were engaged as N.M.R. employees earlier would be considered for regularisation first and those who were engaged as N.M.R. employees later would be considered for regularisation later. Since the petitioners are said to have been regularised as regular Junior Engineers by the Managing Director of the Corporation, before the N.M.R. employees who had been engaged in the Corporation earlier than the peti¬tioners, their regularisation was not in accordance with the directions of either the Supreme Court or the High Court, Can¬cellation of their orders of regularisation by the Managing Director of the Corporation or inaction on the part of the said Managing Director to extend the services of the petitioners as regular Junior Engineers, therefore, is not violative of the directions or orders passed by the Supreme Court or the High Court but is consistent with the said directions. 15. Since the impugned orders cancelling the appointments of the petitioners as regular Junior Engineers and the impugned inaction on the part of the Managing Director of the Corporation in not extending the services of the petitioners as regular Junior Engineers are not arbitrary or illegal and not violative of the directions of this Court, we are not inclined to quash the same. But this is not to say that the petitioners will not be regularised in the service and absorbed in the Corporation in accordance with the scheme for such absorption framed by the Corporation. As indicated above, the High Court and the Supreme Court had directed the Corporation to frame a scheme for regular¬isation and in accordance with the said direction, the Corpora¬tion has framed a scheme for regularisation. As per paragraphs-4 and 5 of the said scheme as approved by the State Government, the entire strength of 4422 casual employees including the N.M.Rs. were to be brought over to the regular establishment by 2001 A.D. in phases. As per paragraphs-4 and 5 of the said scheme as approved by the State Government, the entire strength of 4422 casual employees including the N.M.Rs. were to be brought over to the regular establishment by 2001 A.D. in phases. The year 2001 is long since over and the petitioners in these batch of writ petitions ought to have been regularised but they are still continuing as N.M.Rs.. This Court has also recorded the concession of the Corporation that the petitioners would be regularised in a phased manner in the common judgment dated 9.8.1999 in O.J.C. No. 2436 of 1995, 2102 of 1996 and O.J.C. No. 2105 of 1906. It is too late for the Corporation now to wriggle out from its legal obligation to regularise the serv¬ices of the petitioners arising from the directions of the High Court and the Supreme Court and the undertaking given by the Corporation before the High Court. 16. The Corporation, however, has taken a stand in its counter affidavit filed in O.J.C. No. 7186 of 2000 that the Corporation is presently facing serious financial constraints due to reduction of budgetary provision by the State Government and for this reason, it is unable to regularise the services of the remaining N.M.R. workers. We are afraid, we cannot accept the aforesaid plea taken by the Corporation in not regularising the services of the petitioners. In Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar and others, A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 706, a similar plea of lack of funds was taken by the employee for not absorb¬ing some of the employees, but the Supreme Court held : “The decision to absorb some of the employees at one point of time or in a phased manner depends on facts and circumstances of each case. Where very large number of workers are required to be absorbed, this Court accepted the formula, in the past to absorb such employees under a scheme in a phased manner. This is done to work it in out within its financial means. Every liberty and entitlement is always subject to such financial limits. But in considering such absorption, the financial means have to be stretched to the maximum but should to be a defence with motive to disentitle the claim of the workmen. The grant of this phased absorption thus is in itself a mechanism under this principle. Every liberty and entitlement is always subject to such financial limits. But in considering such absorption, the financial means have to be stretched to the maximum but should to be a defence with motive to disentitle the claim of the workmen. The grant of this phased absorption thus is in itself a mechanism under this principle. But as we have said this mechanism is not a tool to misuse for taking away any legitimate right of any worker. The Court has to be cautious in exercising its discretion. On the one hand it has to keep the interest of the workers alive and on the other to see that employer does not become spineless for the lack of funds eroding the very workers interest.........” A reading of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court would show that absorption or regularisation of employees in a phased manner is itself mechanism to enable to the employer to find the means for absorbing the employees and such phased absorption or regularisation takes care of the interest of the employees as well as the inability on the part of the employer to find funds for absorbing all the employees at a time. A reading of the Scheme for absorbing N.M.R. employees of the Corporation also shows that the financial implications for absorbing all the 4422 casual/N.M.R. employees of the Corporation have been worked out in detail. Paragraph-3 of the said scheme is extracted herein below : “3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court agreed to the decision of our High Court regarding preparation of a scheme for absorbing casu¬al/daily rated workers having rendered 5 years or more service under the OLIC. so, the Board of Directors suggestion for need base regularisation does not fit well with the directions of the High Court and the Supreme Court. Therefore, on a strict compli¬ance of the Hon’ble Apex Court directions, a scheme for absorbing 4422 NMR employees now working under OLIC was taken into consideration. Since all the casual employees who have completed 5 years of service could not be straight away absorbed due to paucity of funds of the Corporation and of the funding agency, the State Government, it is proposed to cover the casual employees at first those who have completed 10 years of continu¬ous service on 31.12.1991 numbering 1029 such employees with an extra financial involvement of 1.20 crores. Thereafter, the remaining 3395 casual employees will be absorbed as indicated below : Rs. Rs. ______________________________________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 31.12.91 1994-95 1029 1,19,47,660.00 Nil 31.12.92 1995-96 858 99,63,018.00 2,29,45,766.00 31.12.93 1996-97 488 55,57,851.00 2,95,63,415.00 31.12.94 1997-98 589 60,87,002.00. 3,70,46,248.00 31.12.95 31.12.96 31.12.97 1998-99 499 60,99,372.00 4,37,47,026.00 31.12.98 31.12.99 31.12.2000 1999-2000 697 85,23,377.00 5,27,94,468.00 31.12.2001 31.12.2002 2000-2001 262 33,69,618.00 5,68,98,238.00 31.12.2003 31.12.2004 4422 The aforesaid scheme for absorption of N.M.R. employees of the Corporation who had rendered five years or more service under the Corporation had also been approved by the Government of Orissa, Rural Development Department, inter alia, on the condition that additional financial requirement should be fully met by the Corporation through improvement in water rate collection and that the Corporation will meet the expenditure by suitable adjustment within their normal plan provision of Rs. 30,00,00,000/-. Thus, the Corporation has to organise the affairs in such a way as to meet the costs of regularisation of the remaining N.M.R. employ¬ees. The normal plan provision of Rs. 30,00,00,000/- (rupees thirty crores), however, will have to be provided to the Corpora¬tion by the State Government. We cannot, therefore, accept the plea of the Corporation that it cannot regularise the services of the petitioners on account of paucity of funds although we are prepare to give some more time to the Corporation to regularise the services of the petitioners. 17. By the letter dated 23.11.2001 of the Government of Orissa, Finance Department, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary Water Resources Department, Government of Orissa has been informed generally that because of severe ways and means crisis, the State Government has signed an MOU with Ministry of Finance, Government of India and committed itself for progressively reducing the non-plan revenue expenditure and accordingly, as a part of medium term financial reform measures aimed at progressive reduction of the Government establishment, the State Government have decided to abolish 50% of the base level vacancies. We fail to see as to how the said letter dated 23.11.2001 can restrain the Corporation from regularising the services of the petitioners. As indicated above, the scheme for regularisation/absorption of N.M.R. employ¬ees has been framed by the Corporation pursuant to the directions of this Court and the Supreme Court and the Corporation has undertaken before this Court to regularise the services of the petitioners. As indicated above, the scheme for regularisation/absorption of N.M.R. employ¬ees has been framed by the Corporation pursuant to the directions of this Court and the Supreme Court and the Corporation has undertaken before this Court to regularise the services of the petitioners. Further, as per the said scheme prepared by the Corporation, all the casual/N.M.R. employees of the Corporation who had completed five years of service were to be brought into the regular establishment by 2000-2001. By November, 2001 when the said decision was taken by the Government to abolish 50% of the base level vacancies, all the remaining casual/N.M.R. employ¬ees who had completed five years of service including the peti¬tioners ought to have been regularised as regular Junior Engi¬neers in the Corporation. The said letter dated 23.11.2001 of the Government of Orissa, Finance Department, therefore, cannot stand on the way of the Corporation in regularising the services of the petitioners. 18. Coming now to the plea of the Corporation that the World Bank and other funding agencies are insisting on reduction in the strength of the staff of the Corporation, such reduction of staff can be achieved by Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Those who have put in fairly long spell of service, say for 20 to 30 years, and have attained 50 to 55 years may be retired under a scheme for voluntary retirement as a measure for reduction of the staff strength of the Corporation. But N.M.R. employees, such as the petitioners who are young and are yet to be regularised in service and on such regularisation will have several years of service, cannot be denied regularisation on the ground that reduction of staff strength is being insisted upon by the World Bank and other funding agencies. Moreover, the petitioners have been engaged as N.M.R. Junior Engineers of the Corporation for more than ten years and their services have been utilised by the Corporation and they cannot be continued on N.M.R. basis at a subsistence level. Continuance of the petitioners as N.M.R. Junior Engineers any longer would amount to exploitation of the petitioners by the Corporation, which is not expected of an instrumentality of a State like the Corporation. 19. Before we part with the case, we would like to observe that the orders issued by the Managing Director of the Corpora¬tion appointing the petitioners as regular Junior Engineers are not properly worded. 19. Before we part with the case, we would like to observe that the orders issued by the Managing Director of the Corpora¬tion appointing the petitioners as regular Junior Engineers are not properly worded. The said appointment orders show that the petitioners have been appointed as regular Junior Engineers provisionally for one year on ad hoc basis. Once a person is appointed as regular Junior Engineer, his appointment may be on probation, but cannot be on ad hoc basis. The words ‘regular’ and ‘ad hoc’ are antithetical to each other in service jurisprudence and an appointment is either regular or ad hoc and cannot be both at the same time. This is yet another reason why the orders of appointment of the petitioners as regular Junior Engineers will have to be cancelled or the appointments of the petitioners as regular Junior Engineers on ad hoc basis should not be extended. Instead, fresh appointment orders will have to be issued to the petitioners as regular Junior Engineers by the Corporation within four months from today. 20. In the result, we decline to quash the impugned orders cancelling the appointments of some of the petitioners as regular Junior Engineers and decline to declare as illegal the inaction of the Managing Director of the Corporation in not extending the services of some of the petitioners as regular Junior Engineers, but we direct that the Corporation will regularise the services of the petitioners and issue fresh orders of regular appointment of the petitioners as Junior Engineers within four months from today. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions are partly allowed. But considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. M. PAPANNA, J. I agree. Petitions partly allowed.