JUDGMENT By the Court.—All these three intra-Court appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 16.11.2007 of Hon’ble Single Judge allowing the writ petitions of petitioner-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the “petitioners") quashing the orders impugned in the writ petition whereby the respondent-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the “appellants”) have cancelled the orders of regularisation of petitioners and reverted them to their original position of full time sweeper/casual labour and also directing for recovery of the amount paid in excess to the petitioners. 2. The appellants it appears formulated a scheme for conversion of part time casual labours into full time casual labours w.e.f. 25.8.2000 and thereafter on 23.1.2006 took a further decision that all those part time casual labours who have been converted into a full time casual labours be considered for regularisation against group ‘D’ vacancies. Appropriate direction in this regard was issued by General Manager, East Circle, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the “General Manager, BSNL”) on 23.1.2006 appending a list of such labours who it sanctioned for regularisation in group ‘D’ cadre. The aforesaid list included all the petitioners. The General Manager, BSNL thereafter issued orders of regularisation on 20/31.7.2006 and corresponding order for pay fixation was issued on 3.8.2006. Service books of petitioners were prepared and pay slips were also issued. On 2.1.2007 the impugned order was issued reverting the petitioners to their original position as casual labours w.e.f. December, 2006 and orders were issued for payment of wages on daily wage basis. Another order was issued on 15.1.2007 directing the Accounts Officer concerned that the amount already paid to the petitioners, over and above the wages found payable on daily wage basis, be recovered from them. It is these two orders which were challenged in the writ petitions by the petitioners on the ground that having regularised they could not have been reverted to their original position as casual labour and secondly that the impugned orders have been issued in utter violation of principle of natural justice. 3. It is these two orders which were challenged in the writ petitions by the petitioners on the ground that having regularised they could not have been reverted to their original position as casual labour and secondly that the impugned orders have been issued in utter violation of principle of natural justice. 3. The case of the appellants before the Hon’ble Single Judge was that, besides other, the petitioners could not have been regularised in view of the Constitution Bench judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, 2006(4) SCC 1 , decided on 10.4.2006 since in the case in hand the order of regularisation was issued after the aforesaid judgment and it is for this reason that the respondents passed the impugned orders reverting the petitioners to their original position as casual labour. The appellants in their counter affidavit pleaded that before passing the impugned orders, show cause notice was issued by the Assistant General Manager on 28.10.2006 stating that in view of the Apex Court’s decision the orders of regularisation deserved to be cancelled and the petitioners shall be paid salary as per the old system and thereafter only the order dated 31.7.2006 of cancellation of regularisation was passed. In the supplementary counter affidavit it was also pointed out that after the decision of Apex Court in Uma Devi (supra), a circular letter was issued by the Assistant Director General (Personal-IV), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, New Delhi on 17.5.2006 stating that the Apex Court has held that any appointment made bypassing the scheme envisaged in the Constitution for public employment is illegal and the judgment of Apex Court be brought to the notice of all concerned. It is said that thereafter it was not within the authority of subordinate officials to issue any regularisation order to the petitioners. Since the aforesaid circular order came to the notice of the authorities subsequently, the regularisation orders were recalled. By another supplementary counter affidavit it was said that the petitioners were never engaged by advertisement of vacancies, inviting applications, undergoing selection procedure etc. and, therefore, their engagement being illegal they could not have been regularised in view of the Constitution Bench decision in Uma Devi (supra) followed in Municipal Corporation of Jabalpur v. Om Prakash Dudey, 2007(1) SCC 373 . 4. and, therefore, their engagement being illegal they could not have been regularised in view of the Constitution Bench decision in Uma Devi (supra) followed in Municipal Corporation of Jabalpur v. Om Prakash Dudey, 2007(1) SCC 373 . 4. The Hon’ble Single Judge has held, taking recourse to another decision of the Apex Court in U.P. State Electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey and others, JT 2007(12) SC 179 that the judgment of Apex Court in Uma Devi (supra) would not apply mechanically without looking to the facts of the particular case and thereafter has examined the facts of these cases in particular, and held, that there was an agreement between the parties that casual labours working on part time basis would be made full time casual labours and thereafter would be absorbed as a one time scheme and the said agreement was binding between the parties. His Lordship has also held that mere lack of requisition sent to the employment exchange under the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 would not vitiate the exercise of regularisation and hence they could not have been denied the benefit of regularisation only on the ground of the decision of the Apex Court Uma Devi’s case and that too without any opportunity or show cause notice. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended before this Court that the Hon’ble Single Judge has failed to consider that the alleged regularisation of petitioners was the result of fraud or misrepresentation on their part inasmuch as there are certain persons who is said to have been engaged as part time casual labours at the age of 7 or 8 years when they were minor and without looking to these facts, in a collusive manner, the field authorities appears to have issued regularisation orders of the petitioners and, therefore, they were rightly deregularised and the orders for realization of excess amount paid under the regularisation orders were issued. He drew our attention to the supplementary counter affidavit, para 4 and 5 thereof, showing that Smt. Asha Devi has shown date of engagement as 10.2.1985 and her date of birth is 5.4.1977 which means that as per her own claim she was engaged as casual part time labour when she was below 8 years of age. He drew our attention to the supplementary counter affidavit, para 4 and 5 thereof, showing that Smt. Asha Devi has shown date of engagement as 10.2.1985 and her date of birth is 5.4.1977 which means that as per her own claim she was engaged as casual part time labour when she was below 8 years of age. He, therefore, submitted that in case of fraud or misrepresentation it was always open to the employer to recall its order and the Hon’ble Single Judge has erred in law in observing that the case of fraud or misrepresentation has not been pleaded by the appellants. He contended that the words “fraud or misrepresentation” in so many words though have not been mentioned in the pleading but the aforesaid facts were placed on record to show the ex facie fraudulent activities in the regularisation of petitioners and, therefore, the regularisation orders have been recalled rightly. 6. Sri R.C. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, disputing the aforesaid facts contended that at no point of time the case of fraud or misrepresentation was ever pleaded or argued by the appellants and, therefore, here is not a case which warrants interference in the appeal particularly when the orders of regularisation in favour of petitioners have been cancelled without affording any opportunity to petitioners by mechanical application of the Apex Court decision in Uma Devi (supra) though the said decision in the facts and circumstances of the case have no application. 7. Having considered the submission and going through the record we find that the appellants have not disputed this fact that as a one time measure, relaxing all other conditions of recruitment etc., they formulated a policy of regularisation of such part time casual labours who were working since long before the creation of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited by firstly converting part time casual labour in full time casual labour and thereby regularising them in group ‘D’ service. The said scheme was not revoked or rescinded by the respondents. It is not their case that the benefit of the said scheme has not been accorded/extended to other similarly placed employees. The said scheme was not revoked or rescinded by the respondents. It is not their case that the benefit of the said scheme has not been accorded/extended to other similarly placed employees. The only reason for not extending the benefit of the said scheme to the petitioners is that by the time actual order of regularisation could be issued/or was issued in favour of the petitioners the Apex Court decision in Uma Devi (supra) had come which provided that the engagement/appointment made contrary to the rules cannot be regularised. The law laid down by the Apex Court in Uma Devi (supra) is the law of land and it has to be observed and complied with by all the authorities. We have no manner of doubt in this proposition. However, the Apex Court in Uma Devi (supra) has neither set aside the existing scheme or provision in a department which provide for benefit of regularisation to its employees and it has also not touched upon the orders of regularisation already issued in various cases according to the existing scheme or the statutory provision as the case may be. 8. In the case of petitioners the decision to convert part time casual labours into full time casual labours was taken in 2002 and for regularisation thereof in January, 2006. If the appellants took some more time or delayed the matter for issuance of actual order of regularisation, the petitioners for the same could not have been blamed. Moreover, the Chief General Manager, BSNL, Lucknow issued order on 23.1.2006 itself according its approval for regularisation of the petitioners and while conveying its sanction, it only directed the concerned authority to verify that the persons sought to be regularised were working on the date of regularisation and fulfil all other conditions requisite for the same as provided in the scheme of regularisation and that they shall be regularised against the post created in group ‘D’ and not against new posts to be sanctioned for this purpose only. That being so, the mere incident of issuance of formal regularisation orders after the decision of Apex Court in Uma Devi (supra) cannot vitiate the otherwise valid regularisation of the petitioners inasmuch as the fate of petitioners in respect to regularisation cannot depend upon the exigency or incident of mere issuance of formal orders of regularisation by the concerned authority though all other formalities were completed much earlier in point of time. Neither that is the intent of law laid down by the Apex Court in Uma Devi (supra) nor it has said so. Despite of our repeated query from the learned counsel for the appellants he could not show anything contained in Uma Devi (supra) which empower an employer to recall an order of regularisation either already issued or if the other procedure was completed but formal order was issued thereafter in accordance with the existing scheme or rules for regularisation. Even in the subsequent decisions the Apex Court has nowhere says that where a person is covered by a regularisation scheme formulated by the employer, in the absence of such scheme being challenged in a Court of Law and declared illegal, the benefit of such scheme cannot be extended to such employees. 9. It is no doubt also true that so far as the decision of Apex Court in Pooran Chandra Pandey (supra) is concerned it would be useful to refer a three Judge judgment of Apex Court in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others, JT 2008(11) SC 467. The Apex Court held that some part of the judgment in Pooran Chandra Pandey (supra) in so far as it has commented and made observations in respect to Uma Devi (supra) would neither be treated as binding by the High Courts, Tribunals and other judicial forums nor they should be relied upon or made basis for bypassing the principle laid down by the Constitution Bench. However, this would not turn the table otherwise since the present cases can be decided even otherwise. 10. Be that as it may, so far as these appeals are concerned we are prima facie of the view that the petitioners were regularised by the competent authority giving the benefit of scheme of regularisation which was neither challenged in any Court of Law nor was struck down. 10. Be that as it may, so far as these appeals are concerned we are prima facie of the view that the petitioners were regularised by the competent authority giving the benefit of scheme of regularisation which was neither challenged in any Court of Law nor was struck down. So long as the scheme is continuing and its benefit has been extended to similarly placed other employees by issuing formal orders of regularisation on or before 10.4.2006, we do not find any reason as to why mere delay in issuing the formal orders of regularisation to the petitioners would deprive the same benefit to them who are also covered by the said scheme which has been formulated by the appellants themselves and has not been discontinued. Moreover, once the benefit of regularisation has been conferred upon a person, before its revocation it is incumbent upon the employer to afford adequate opportunity of defence. The alleged show cause notice issued by the appellants in the case in hand only shows that since the Apex Court’s decision in Uma Devi (supra) has been delivered on 10.4.2006 and the regularisation order were issued thereafter hence the appellants decided to revoke the same and it did not give such facts as has been argued before the Court that the regularisation has been obtained by the petitioner on accounts of fraud or misrepresentation etc. and they are not covered by the scheme. 11. Further, before directing for recovery of the amount already paid, again it was incumbent upon the appellants to afford opportunity to the petitioners. The alleged show cause notice filed as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit nowhere says that such fact was mentioned and the petitioners were directed to show cause against any proposed recovery. In Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 2480 , the Apex Court clearly held that such orders could not have been passed without affording opportunity of show cause to the concerned employee. 12. In Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 2480 , the Apex Court clearly held that such orders could not have been passed without affording opportunity of show cause to the concerned employee. 12. In the circumstances while confirming the judgment of Hon’ble Single Judge to the extent it has set aside the orders impugned in the writ petitions we make it clear that the other observations of Hon’ble Single Judge may not come in the way of the appellants for passing fresh orders in respect of the petitioners in accordance with law which they may pass after issuing an appropriate show cause notice to the petitioners henceforth giving them opportunity to submit their reply effectively. This exercise shall be completed by the appellants within three months from today. 13. We are informed that during the pendency of this appeal the petitioners were working and discharging their duties with the appellants which fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for the appellants. That being so, till fresh orders, as directed above, are passed by the appellants status quo in respect to the continuance of petitioners in service, status and salary shall be maintained. 14. With the aforesaid directions/observations and modifications, all the appeals are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ————