ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The State of Punjab advertised 150 posts of ancillary nurse midwife but selected 632 candidates which came to be challenged before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court by its order struck down the appointments which were in excess of the number of posts advertised. Subsequently, by a modified consent order, those persons whose services were quashed by the High Court were permitted to continue until such time as fresh regular appointments were made. In the meantime, on 12-7-2001, the Governor of Punjab promulgated an ordinance for the recruitment of ancillary nurse midwives who were in the job for three years. Because of the benefit given in the said ordinance, the respondent herein was reappointed and joined duty on 26-9-2001. Since she was not given the continuity of service from the date of the original appointment, she challenged the same the before the Labour Court that even before the ordinance of 12-7-2001 came into force, she had already completed 240 days of service and in view of the ordinance her services were further continued, therefore, she was entitled to continuity of service. The Labour Court accepted this argument without noticing the fact that firstly, her original entry into the service was contrary to law hence was set aside by the first judgment of the High Court. Hence, her appointment stood terminated but the same was subsequently continued on ad hoc basis till regular appointments were made. Therefore, there was a break in service from the date of the first judgment of the High Court till her fresh appointment under the ordinance. 3. Even otherwise, she was continuing under the order of the High Court which was only temporary in nature. Her services became continuous only after the fresh appointment as per the terms of the ordinance. Therefore, looked at from any angle, it is clear that the respondent cannot claim continuity of service from the date of her original appointment. In the abovesaid view, we are of the opinion that the Labour Court as well as the High Court were wrong in giving continuity of service. The appeal is allowed. No costs. 4. We make it clear that the respondent having been appointed under the ordinance, she shall be entitled to all the benefits that flow from the said appointment.