Sivasankara Panicker Radhakrishnan, C.J. 1. This matter has been placed before the Full Bench by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on a reference made by a learned Single Judge of this Court in exercise of his powers conferred under Rule 30(b) of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules, 1999 (for short High Court Rules). When SWP no.2347-J/2003 came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge felt that the case be referred to a larger Bench since some important questions of law and public importance were involved, warranting a decision by a larger Bench. Learned Judge had also expressed doubt as to whether the judgment rendered by the Full Bench in SWP no. 1309/1998 and connected matters has binding effect on all other Benches of the Court, being a consent order, though as per Rule 34(1) of the High Court Rules every decision of the Full Bench is binding on all Division and Single Benches upon the points of law or usage having the force of law. Full Bench had disposed of the aforesaid writ petition and other connected matters, according to the learned Judge, by way of consent of parties and not by giving any directions of its own. Learned Single Judge while addressing the issue stated as follows: "... I am of the opinion that the Full Bench of this Court only recorded consent (statements) of the parties and no directions were issued of its own. I have no doubt in my mind that any judgment or order passed by a Division Bench or a Full Bench of this Court has binding force upon me under Rule 34 of the J&K High Court Rules, 1999. In the present case, order does not seem to be a judgment of the Court. Yet keeping in view judicial propriety and the highest traditions of this Court and keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of J&K PSC v. Dr. Narinder Mohan and Suraj Parkash Gupta v. State and others referred to above and other catena of judgments noticed by the Apex Court in Suraj Parkash Gupta's case, I deem it my obligation to refer this matter to the Larger Bench of this Court." 2. Learned Judge has also referred to the observations of the Apex Court in State of UP v. C. L. Aggarwal, AIR 1997 SC 2431 . Learned Judge has also referred to the observations of the Apex Court in State of UP v. C. L. Aggarwal, AIR 1997 SC 2431 . Noticing that the matter involved important questions of law and public importance, the learned Judge placed the matter before the Chief Justice to enable him to constitute a larger Bench to examine the questions highlighted by the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge formulated the following questions of law for consideration of the larger Bench: i) Whether the order passed by the Full Bench on the consent of the parties has binding nature on all other Benches of the Court in terms of Rule 34(1) of the J&K High Court Rules, 1999? ii) Whether the State has power to relax the rules of recruitment under the given circumstances? And iii) Whether the migrant vacancies can be filled up by the regularization of ad hoc appointees where: (i) the migrant has retired / died and a clear vacancy has become available? And (ii) the migrant continued to be in service and has lien on the post? 3. Learned Single Judge has purportedly exercised the power conferred upon him under Rule 30(b) of the High Court Rules which reads as follows: "30. Save as otherwise provided by these rules or other laws or by any general or special order of the Chief Justice, every other case shall be heard and disposed of by a Division Bench. Provided that- (b) a Judge sitting alone may, if he thinks fit, refer a case of any question of law arising therein for decision to a larger Bench to be constituted by the Chief Justice." 4. In the above Rule instead of `of' the word `on' could have been more appropriately used, however, the meaning is clear in the sense that a Judge may refer any question of law arising in a case before him for decision by a larger Bench if he thinks fit. 5. Mr. A. H. Naik, Learned Advocate General, and Mr. Z. A. Shah, Senior Advocate, appearing for some of the parties impleaded, submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in referring the matter to a larger Bench to be constituted by the Chief Justice since no questions of law as such arose for consideration before the learned Single Judge in the facts and circumstances of that case. Z. A. Shah, Senior Advocate, appearing for some of the parties impleaded, submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in referring the matter to a larger Bench to be constituted by the Chief Justice since no questions of law as such arose for consideration before the learned Single Judge in the facts and circumstances of that case. Learned counsels also submitted that the facts of the present case are entirely different from the facts of the cases decided by the Full Bench and that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in his Reference Order in taking the view that the Full Bench had only recorded consent and statements of the parties and no directions were issued by the Full Bench of its own. 6. Learned Single Judge, in our view, has completely misunderstood the scope of the judgment rendered by the Full Bench. Full Bench disposed of SWP no.563/2000 and connected petitions on June 28, 2001 and specifically captioned the order as `judgment'. Learned Advocate General, who had appeared before the Full Bench, had informed the Full Bench that the State Government had decided to allow all the petitioners appointed against migrant vacancies to continue till an appropriate scheme for their regularisation was formulated or till the concerned migrant employees returned to their duties in Kashmir Valley, whichever would happen earlier. Learned Advocate General had also made it clear to the Full Bench that in the event of any of the migrant vacancy post becoming a clear vacancy post on any count, or any such post having already become a clear vacancy post, petitioners holding those posts be considered for regularisation on such posts. Learned counsel for the petitioners in those cases had sought a direction from the Full Bench to the Government that in the event any of the petitioners were required to give up the job on account of return of the migrant to the Valley, or for any other reason, except in disciplinary proceedings, the order of their ouster should not be given effect to for a period of one month to enable them to avail of the alternative remedy available to them under law, including approaching this Court. Learned Advocate General had assured the Full Bench that no such situation would arise. Learned Advocate General had assured the Full Bench that no such situation would arise. Full Bench, accordingly, disposed of all the writ petitions stating as follows: "i. The State Government shall allow all the petitioners appointed against migrant vacancies to continue till an appropriate scheme for their regularisation is formulated or till the concerned migrant employees return to their duties in Kashmir Valley, whichever happens earlier; ii. In the event of any of the migrant vacancy post becoming a clear vacancy post on any count, or any of such post having already become a clear vacancy post, those petitioners who are already working on those migrant vacancy posts, shall be considered for regularisation on such posts in accordance with law; iii. In the event any of the petitioners is required to give up the job due to the return of the migrant to the Valley or for any other reason (except in disciplinary proceedings), the order of his ouster shall not be given effect to for a period of one month to enable the petitioner concerned to avail of such remedy as may be available to him under the law, including approaching this Court." 7. Judgment / orders of the Full Bench is binding on all Division and Single Benches as per Rule 34(1) of the High Court Rules, whether it was a consent order or otherwise. Full Bench gave positive directions to the Government to allow all the petitioners appointed against migrant vacancies to continue till an appropriate scheme for their regularisation was formulated or till the concerned migrant employees returned to their duties in Kashmir Valley, whichever happened earlier. Full Bench also held that in the event any of the petitioners was required to give up the job due to the return of the migrant to the Valley or for any other reason (except in disciplinary proceedings), the order of his ouster should not be given effect to for a period of one month to enable the petitioner concerned to avail of such remedy as may be available to him under law, including approaching this Court. Learned Judge, in our view, has committed a fundamental error in misreading the judgment of the Full Bench. Learned Judge, in our view, has committed a fundamental error in misreading the judgment of the Full Bench. The order of the Full Bench clearly falls within the four corners of Rule 34(1) of the High Court Rules which says every decision of the Full Bench shall be binding on all Division and Single Benches upon the point of law or usage having the force of law determined by the Full Bench unless it is subsequently reversed by another Full Bench of equal or larger strength. Judicial discipline demands due compliance and adherence to the Full Bench decision. 8. Learned Single Judge has formulated three questions of law which, in our view, do not arise in the facts and circumstances of this case. Facts involved in the Full Bench case were entirely different from the facts of the present case. To hold so, we have to examine the facts of the present case as well as the facts placed before the Full Bench. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that this Court should finally adjudicate the matter on merits rather than sending it back to the Single Judge, after answering the reference, since the matter is pending before this Court for several years. 9. We have already answered the first question formulated by the learned Single Judge in the affirmative. Now, we will deal the second question formulated by the learned Single Judge - whether the State has power to relax the rules of recruitment under the given circumstances? 10. Writ petition was preferred by one Dr. Satish Kumar Raina under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of J&K State for a writ of certiorari to quash the constitution of Empowered Committee constituted by the Government for selection of Doctors on regular basis, as being ultra vires of the Constitution or, in the alternative, the record of recommendation / select list prepared by the Empowered Committee be quashed. Petitioner also prayed for a writ of mandamus to accord consideration for regularisation of petitioner's service along with other eligible candidates and also other consequential reliefs. 11. Petitioner raised the contention that the constitution of the Empowered Committee is per se unconstitutional and it is in derogation of the provisions of the Constitution. Petitioner also prayed for a writ of mandamus to accord consideration for regularisation of petitioner's service along with other eligible candidates and also other consequential reliefs. 11. Petitioner raised the contention that the constitution of the Empowered Committee is per se unconstitutional and it is in derogation of the provisions of the Constitution. Empowered Committee was constituted by the Government pursuant to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court and we fail to see how the petitioner could challenge the correctness or otherwise of the Full Bench decision of this Court to which he was a party. Dr. Satish Kumar was also a writ petitioner in SWP no.563/2000 which was disposed of by the Full Bench vide its judgment dated June 6, 2001, he was at serial no.64 in the array of parties. Full Bench disposed of all the writ petitions on consent of the parties and, hence, petitioner cannot canvass the correctness or otherwise of the directions given by the Full Bench before the learned Single Judge. Further, it may be noted that the petitioner was not an appointee in a migrant vacancy. Petitioner was appointed by the Commissioner / Secretary to the Government, Health and Family Welfare and Medical Education Department vide order dated April 2, 1998 for a period of 89 days in a leave vacancy which arose in Jammu. The ad hoc appointees, including the petitioner, were directed to report before the Director of Indian System of Medicines, Jammu, for further posting. Petitioner was never working in a migrant vacancy at any point of time. The appointment order specifically stated that the appointment was purely on leave arrangement basis and would not confer any right for regular appointment and would cease as soon as the post is filled up on a regular basis. After the expiry of 89 days, when the service of the petitioner was sought to be terminated, he approached this Court and filed writ petition, SWP no. 1083/1998. which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide his judgment dated June 28, 1998 permitting the petitioner, to continue in service till regular appointment is effected. Petitioner's case, therefore, stood on a different footing and we fail to see how the petitioner's case was clubbed along with cases relating to migrant vacancies. 1083/1998. which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide his judgment dated June 28, 1998 permitting the petitioner, to continue in service till regular appointment is effected. Petitioner's case, therefore, stood on a different footing and we fail to see how the petitioner's case was clubbed along with cases relating to migrant vacancies. Petitioner, in any case, cannot question the directions given by the Full Bench to which he was a party. Persons who were appointed on migrant posts formed a class by themselves and the petitioner is not falling in that category, since he was appointed in a leave vacancy. Petitioner has not produced any materials to show that the petitioner was appointed in a migrant vacancy. Records, including the appointment order produced by the petitioner, show that he was appointed in a leave vacancy at Jammu and at no point of time he was appointed in the Kashmir Valley in a migrant vacancy. 12. State of Jammu and Kashmir was in the grip of militancy in the early 1990s and was undergoing turbulent times. Government employees working in schools, hospitals and other essential services had to flee the Valley due to militancy to various other places in the country. Posts occupied by them fell vacant all of a sudden and there was no person to man the posts in various essential services. State had faced a situation that they had to pay salary and other service benefits to those who had left the Valley due to unfortunate circumstances. There was nobody to man the posts as the employees had left the Valley due to threat of militants. Government had to find out some alternatives for the functioning of the schools, hospitals and other essential services. Regular selection and appointment to those posts were not possible since the migrant employees had retained their lien on the posts and regular selection was time consuming, and public interests would have suffered. Several thousands of posts had to be filled up by the Government on an ad hoc basis in public interest making it clear to the appointees that they could continue in the posts till the migrant employees returned to the Valley. Several employees who had migrated from the Valley had since been superannuated or had left their jobs of their own. Several employees who had migrated from the Valley had since been superannuated or had left their jobs of their own. Meanwhile, several orders for continuation of these persons appointed on migrant vacancies were passed by the State Government and the Courts. Since most of the migrant employees had retained their lien, it was not possible at that time for the State to go for regular selection. State also had to permit ad hoc employees to continue in those posts, and many of them are continuing in those posts for more than a decade and are manning various essential services. 13. State had to tackle a human problem and it was under such circumstances it was represented before the Full Bench that the Government was contemplating to frame a scheme for deciding the fate of those employees who were employed on migrant posts. Consequent upon the judgment / order of the Full Court, the State Cabinet took a decision on October 23, 2001 constituting an Empowered Committee to scrutinize the cases of the concerned candidates working on migrant vacancies and to take necessary steps for their regularisation. Accordingly, an Empowered Committee was constituted by the State Government vide its order dated November 9, 2001 comprising of the Financial Commissioner, Finance Department; Administrative Secretary of the concerned Department; a representative of the General Administration Department and Director, Codes, Finance Department as Member Secretary. Committee was authorised to scrutinize the service rules of the concerned Service and see whether the candidates fulfilled the requisite qualifications as prescribed under the rules and other requirements, and then make necessary recommendations for regularisation of eligible candidates to the respective Administrative Departments and they would issue necessary orders of regularisation in light of the recommendations made by the Committee. Administrative Department was also authorised to relax the lower / upper age limit and qualification, wherever necessary, and wherever recommended by the Committee. Later, meeting of the Empowered Committee was convened on December 11, 2003 to consider the proposal for regularisation of ad hoc appointments made against migrant vacancies by the Health and Medical Education Department (ISM) and decision was taken to regularise those ad hoc appointees who had the requisite qualification. Similar orders were passed in respect of other departments as well. Later, meeting of the Empowered Committee was convened on December 11, 2003 to consider the proposal for regularisation of ad hoc appointments made against migrant vacancies by the Health and Medical Education Department (ISM) and decision was taken to regularise those ad hoc appointees who had the requisite qualification. Similar orders were passed in respect of other departments as well. Later, on a decision taken by the Cabinet, yet another government order, in supersession of all the previous orders on the subject, was issued ordering that the migrant substitutes working in various departments against migrant vacant posts be regularised against those posts without waiting for the post to get vacated due to retirement or promotion of migrant employee or due to any other reason. It was also ordered that in the event of a migrant employee returning to the Valley, a post shall be deemed to have been created automatically which shall exist only till migrant employee remains in Government service. For such purpose, a committee was also constituted. The employees who were working in migrant posts formed a class by themselves and we have already said that the petitioner did not fall in that category or class. We have also explained the circumstances under which appointments were made on these migrant vacancies created by migration of incumbents thereof and the public interest involved that necessitated the filling up of those posts on emergent basis. In such situation, we are of the view that the Government was justified in framing a scheme or constituting a committee for looking into the grievance of those who were appointed in migrant vacancies. 14. The Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 , elaborately considered the question as to whether Government have got the power for absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees appointed / recruited and continued for long in public employment dehors the constitutional scheme of public employment. In paragraph 53 of the judgment, the Court also considered the power of the Government in the matter of regularisation of those employees who had continued in service for ten years or more. In paragraph 53 of the judgment, the Court also considered the power of the Government in the matter of regularisation of those employees who had continued in service for ten years or more. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Mysore v. S. V. Narayanappa, (1967) 1 SCR 128 , and B. N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka, (1979) 4 SCC 507 , the Apex Court held as follows: "One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S. V. Narayanappa, R. N. Nanjundappa and B. N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme." 15. The Apex Court has, therefore, recognised the fact that in appropriate cases the Government have got the power to regularise ad hoc/temporary, daily-wage employees etc. depending on the facts of each case. The Apex Court has, therefore, recognised the fact that in appropriate cases the Government have got the power to regularise ad hoc/temporary, daily-wage employees etc. depending on the facts of each case. This position has been further clarified by a Full Bench judgment of the Apex Court in U.P. State Electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey 2007 (II) SLJ 491, in which the Court held as follows: "We are constrained to refer to the above decisions and principles contained therein because we find that often Uma Devi's case (supra) is being applied by Courts mechanically as if it were a Euclid's formula without seeing the facts of a particular case. As observed by this Court in Bhavnagar University (supra) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (supra) a little difference in facts or even one additional fact may make a lot of difference in the presidential value of a decision. Hence, in our opinion, Uma Devi's case (supra) cannot be applied mechanically without seeing the facts of a particular case, as a little difference can make Uma Devi's case (supra) inapplicable to the facts of that case." 16. Going by the decisions of the Apex Court in Uma Devi's case as well as the UP Electricity Board's case (supra), we are of the view that the State Government have got the power in appropriate cases to regularise services of temporary / ad hoc employees, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. Government, in our view, rightly constituted the committee to lay down norms for regularising ad hoc employees in migrant posts, which has been done in public interest and taking into consideration the situation which prevailed in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. We, therefore, answer the second question formulated in the affirmative, holding that the State Government has got the powers to relax the Rules of recruitment in public interest in accordance with law. 17. We also find no illegality in the action taken by the Government in filling up the migrant vacancies and regularising ad hoc appointees in migrant posts, whether the vacancy accrued on retirement of the migrant or on his promotion or on the vacancy arising due to death of an employee, hence it was done in public interest and after safeguarding the rights of the migrant employees. Even in cases where migrants had retained lien subsequent orders passed by the Government has safeguarded the rights of those migrants as well. Government has already passed order dated May 16, 2006 ordering that in the event of a migrant returning to the Valley, post shall automatically stand created for him. We, therefore, answer the third question also in the affirmative. We have already held that the learned Judge was bound by the directions of the Full Bench, which we reiterate were perfectly legal and binding. 18. We had to deal with the facts of the case at some length in order to answer the questions formulated and referred to the Full Bench and we are convinced that the questions of law framed by the learned Judge do not really arise for consideration in the case in hand which has to be disposed on the merits by the appropriate Bench. 19. Learned counsel for the respondents wanted us to finally dispose of the matter on merits which we cannot do in this Reference made under Rule 30(b) of the High Court Rules. Apex Court in Sukumaran, P. M. v. Puthiya Kuttimappilakath Shalima, AIR SCW 2008 SC 2021 : ILR 2008 2 Kerala 149, has held that a Full Bench on Reference can only answer the Reference and send back the case to the appropriate Bench for a decision on merits. We, therefore, send back the case before the appropriate Judge dealing with the subject for early disposal. 20. Reference is answered accordingly. 21. On facts, we are convinced no reference was warranted to the larger Bench. Under such circumstances, we are inclined to award costs of Rs.5,000 to be paid by the petitioner to the Mediation Centre, through Registrar Judicial, High Court of J&K, Srinagar within one month from today.