JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. By the order under appeal dated 30th of April, 2009 the writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 5355 of 2009 preferred by the appellant, has been dismissed on the ground that by a reasoned order the appellants case for regularization was rejected by the authorities vide order dated 3.9.2008 (Annexure-28 to the writ petition). It was also indicated by the writ Court that case of the appellant for reguiarization does not meet the requirements laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Uma Devi and Ors. (3), reported in (2006)4 SCC 1 [: 2006(2) PLJR (SC) 363]. 3. Before us a simple argument has been advanced on behalf of the appellant that while the appellant was appointed on ad hoc basis on the post of Clerk on 13.7.1985 vide Annexure-1 for a period of six months and again on 24.1.1986 vide Annexure-4 the three other persons similarly appointed on ad hoc post for six months vide a later order dated 9th of September, 1986 (Annexure-5) alongwith two others were regularized in service from the date of their appointment on ad hoc basis by order dated 14.8.1997 (Annexure- 12/B). It appears that some more benefits were given to those employees regularized vide Annexure-12/B vide a subsequent order dated 2.5.1998 contained in Annexure-12/C. Annexures-12/B and 12/C contain reference to the orders passed in a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 9871 of an explanation that those orders have been passed in compliance of the directions/orders of the Honble High Court 4. If the orders of the Honble High Court were accepted by the respondents as correct and implemented giving benefit to persons similarly situated as the appellant in that event the respondents clearly erred in law in treating the appellant differently and ignoring his claim for reguiarization only because he had not approached this Court through a writ petition. Such action of the respondents was in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. At the relevant time when Annexures-12/B and 12/C were passed by the concerned respondents in the year, 1997 and 1998, it was their legal duty to treat all similarly situated ad hoc employees in like manner. 5. Such action of the respondents was in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. At the relevant time when Annexures-12/B and 12/C were passed by the concerned respondents in the year, 1997 and 1998, it was their legal duty to treat all similarly situated ad hoc employees in like manner. 5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the appellant was dismissed from service in the year, 2005 on account of illegal discrimination vis-a-vis similarly situated ad hoc employees regularised by Annexures-12/B and 12/C. There is no denial that those employees are still continuing in service as regular employee. As per law settled in the case of Uma Devi (supra), the old transactions of reguiarization of services, already concluded are not to be reopened on account of judgment in Uma Devis case. Hence in this case requirement of justice warrants grant of relief to the appellant so that equality clause in the Constitution of India is not offended. 6. In that view of the matter we quash the impugned order challenged in the writ petition dated 3.12.2005 as well as 3.9.20p8. As a result, the appellant would be reinstated in service as an ad hoc employees, the status which he enjoyed at the time of passing of order dated 3.12.2005 (Annexure-23) to the writ petition. The writ petitioner should be reinstated forthwith alongwith consequential benefits of pay etc. to be paid within a period of three nonths from the date of production/communication of a copy of this order. Thereafter the concerned respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for reguiarization in the same manner and in the light of law prevailing at that time when they considered the case of the other similarly situated employees covered by Annexures-12/B and 12/C and the order for regularization of his service in similar terms should be issued without any delay preferably within a period of four months from the date of production/ communication of a copy of this order. 7. The order under appeal is set aside and this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. However in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.