ORDER : A.K. Mathur, J. - These appeals are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience facts are being taken from Civil Appeal No. 1269 of 2001. 2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 18-4-1996. The Division Bench allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to pay to the petitioners salary in the regular pay scale by fixing their pay at the minimum of the pay scale with effect from the date of the filing of the writ petition i.e. 26-4-1995. It was further directed that the petitioners shall get the benefit of dearness allowance on the minimum of pay scale and arrears shall be paid to the petitioners within four months of the submission of a certified copy of this order. 3. It was also mentioned that this order shall not entitle the petitioners to claim regularisation of services and it will be open to the respondents to dispense with the services of those employees who do not fulfil qualifications but while doing so, the respondents shall comply with the requirements of the statutory provisions like the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. Aggrieved against this order, this appeal by way of special leave petition was filed but the operation of the order of the High Court was not stayed by this Court. The net result was that the State of Punjab started paying the minimum of pay scale to all those petitioners from the date of the judgment of the High Court. All the writ petitioners are getting the minimum pay scale from 1996 onwards. 5. The net result was that the State of Punjab started paying the minimum of pay scale to all those petitioners from the date of the judgment of the High Court. All the writ petitioners are getting the minimum pay scale from 1996 onwards. 5. Mr H.S. Munjral, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has invited our attention to a recent order passed by the State of Punjab on 15-12-2006 whereby after referring to the decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 , a scheme has been prepared and by virtue of that scheme now the services of those persons who have put in 10 years of service as on 10-4-2006 shall be regularised; the employee fulfils the minimum basic qualifications for the post against which he was appointed; it shall be certified by the competent authority that no supernumerary posts were created to retain the employees in service; and it shall be the duty of the Administrative Department that while considering the case of each employee, the orders passed by this Court to be implemented in letter and spirit. It was further directed that no further appointment shall be made except in accordance with law. Since the scheme has now been framed and the State of Punjab has started considering the regularisation of all those persons who have put in 10 years of service as on 10-4-2006, therefore no useful purpose will be served by interfering with the impugned order. More so, these persons are already getting minimum pay scale from 1996. It will not be proper to put the clock back. However, learned counsel has invited our attention to the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh, (1996) 11 SCC 77 . 6. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents has invited our attention to the decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Devinder Singh, (1998) 9 SCC 595 . No useful purpose will be served by going into these cases any more as now the decision in Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 , rendered by the Constitution Bench holds the field and it has cut the root that no further temporary/ad hoc appointments shall be made. 7. No useful purpose will be served by going into these cases any more as now the decision in Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 , rendered by the Constitution Bench holds the field and it has cut the root that no further temporary/ad hoc appointments shall be made. 7. However, now the Government of Punjab has already framed a scheme dated 15-12-2006 for regularisation, we do not propose to interfere with the order passed by the High Court as the respondents are already getting the minimum pay scale from 1996 i.e. for the last more than 10 years. Let the services of these persons may now be regularised in terms of the scheme framed by the State of Punjab dated 15-12-2006. Hence, we do not find any merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed. 8. No order as to costs. However, this order shall not be treated as a precedent for future. Appeals dismissed.