JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed originally by four petitioners who were appointed on daily wage basis with Municipal Board Bassi some time on 14/12/1991 by the order of Municipal Board Bassi. Subsequently, the Municipal Board was dissolved and was replaced by the Gram Panchayat. Petitioners however continued to work. Petitioners filed writ petition with the prayer that respondents be directed to treat them as regular employees and entitled to get full salary of regular scale of pay and regularise their services. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset submitted that petitioner No.1 has since been absorbed on the post of Gram Sewak on 16/7/1991 therefore he does not want to press this writ petition on his behalf. The writ petition is accordingly confined to the claim of regularisation of petitioners No.2 to 4 only. Learned counsel submitted that petitioners have worked with the respondents for last 17 years and the respondents be directed to consider case of their regularisation and pay them salary in the regular pay scale. 4. Shri Hemant Gupta, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and argued that in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi : 2006(4) SCC 1 , this court in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not direct regularisation of the petitioners who were not appointed by any regular mode of recruitment. It was contended that petitioners were appointed on daily wage basis and subsequently they were paid only the consolidated salary. They are being continued because of the interim-order of this court passed in the present writ petition. The Gram Panchayat is already short of funds. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner rejoined and submitted that petitioners were appointed in the year 1991 and they had already completed more than 10 years of service in the services of the respondents when the writ petition was filed in 2002 and thereafter they served for further six years, therefore, their cases for regularisation may be considered. It was also argued that one of the petitioners have been absorbed on regular basis, therefore other three cannot be discriminated. It was also argued that one of the petitioners have been absorbed on regular basis, therefore other three cannot be discriminated. Supreme Court in para 53 of the aforesaid judgment of Umadevi has observed that such of the employees who though were not appointed by any regular mode of recruitment but however continued for more than 10 years, the Government ought to as a one time measure consider their cases for regularisation. 6. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, though, no positive direction of regularisation of petitioners can be given but at the same time in view of observations of the Supreme Court in para 53 of the judgment, it should be a case in favour of the petitioners for consideration of their case even excluding the period of stay as the petitioners had completed more than 10 years of service prior to filing of the writ petition.In the result, this writ petition is allowed in part. The petitioners are required to make representation to the respondents within a period of one month. Respondents are directed to consider their case for regularisation as a one time measure in terms of the observation made by the Supreme Court in para 53 of Umadevi supra within a period of three months thereafter and decide the representation by a detailed and speaking order. Till such representation of the petitioners is decided on expiry of four months as aforesaid, services of the petitioners shall not be discriminated.Petition partly allowed. *******