JUDGMENT : D.H. Waghela, J. 1. The impugned order dated 08.05.2008 of learned single Judge of this Court is couched in the following terms: The petitioners were appointed in the year 1999 on part-time basis. It is also made out that two posts are vacant on which the petitioners can be appointed but, their appointment against the vacant posts is not for 10 years, which is the requirement of the State Government's Circular. As and when the petitioners fulfill that requirement, the State Government will consider their cases for being regularized. In the meanwhile, no appointments should be made against those vacancies because, the petitioners will be given first claim on those two vacant posts. 2. By order dated 10.05.2010 in civil application, ad-interim relief was granted to stay execution of the impugned judgment and order. It is stated at the bar by learned A.G.P. that, subsequent to admission of the appeal and grant of ad-interim relief, the petitioners have partly succeeded in another petition, being SCA No. 2742 of 2009, wherein order dated 16.06.2009 is made by this Court (Coram: M.R. Shah, J.) in the following terms: It is reported that the respective petitioners as on today are reinstated by the concerned hospital/trust. Under the circumstances, no further order is required to be passed except observing that the respective petitioners be continued as part-timer sweeper/peon on the same terms and conditions on the day their services came to be terminated. With these present Special Civil Application is disposed of. 3. No one is present for respondents, though served. It is clear and fairly conceded that upon reinstatement of original petitioners, the question of filling up the posts in the meantime did not arise, and the respondents herein have continued to be employed by the appellant. Therefore, the only contention of learned A.G.P. was that the respondents having been irregularly appointed on part-time basis, their services could not be regularized even after continuous service of ten years in terms of Government Resolution dated 01.05.2007 and, therefore, the direction to consider their case for regularization was required to be set aside. 4. The resolution dated 01.05.2007 relied upon for the appellant is expressly based upon the judgment of the Supreme Court and this Court. 4. The resolution dated 01.05.2007 relied upon for the appellant is expressly based upon the judgment of the Supreme Court and this Court. This Court has, in Jadav Nikeshkumar Mafatlal v. State of Gujarat [2007 (1) G.L.H.88], made the following pertinent observations, and that judgment is admittedly accepted by the Government and the aforesaid resolution clearly appears to have been based on those observations: 17.1 ...Since many of the petitioners employed for more than ten years and for six hours or more per day are stated to have worked against sanctioned posts, the respondents are required to consider such cases on the basis of the facts and circumstances of each case. It may be pertinent to add and observe that the State Government, while prescribing the minimum rates of wages in scheduled employment under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, usually provide for payment of full wages in case the hours of work exceed five hours per day. Therefore, ideally, a part-time employee working for six or more hours per day since more than ten years should be considered as a full-time employee for the benefit of regularization, if he is otherwise eligible and covered by the exceptional clause and directions contained in paragraph 53, as mentioned hereinabove. Age-bar cannot, in the nature of things, be invoked in consideration of such cases and for effectuating the mandate. Since the averments in particular petitions of the petitioner actually working full time, though treated and branded as a part-timer, are neither substantiated nor specifically traversed, the respondents have to be left to consider such cases in light of actual facts and the above direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court [in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, AIR 2006 SC 1806 18. Protection or injunction against termination of service is denied with the clarification that it should not be understood to mean that all the petitioners whose services are required and who are presently in service, with or without an interim injunction of the court, have to be necessarily discharged by the respondents. Umadevi and Others, AIR 2006 SC 1806 18. Protection or injunction against termination of service is denied with the clarification that it should not be understood to mean that all the petitioners whose services are required and who are presently in service, with or without an interim injunction of the court, have to be necessarily discharged by the respondents. Since raison d'etre and justification for the apprehension of huge future liabilities in respect of such employees are removed by the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (supra), the respondents may as well consider the issue of redefining the term and conditions of such contracts of service on a just and reasonable basis. Rule is made absolute only to the aforesaid extent, with no order as to costs. 5. In the peculiar facts of the present case, setting aside the direction to even consider the case of the respondents for regularization would mean and amount to the respondents being permanently condemned to the status of "part-time sweepers/peons on the same term and conditions" in terms of the latter order dated 16.6.2009 in SCA No. 2742 of 2009. If the appellant do not propose to subject the respondents to such treatment, the only course open for the appellant would be to terminate their service in accordance with law. Therefore, although it is not obligatory upon the appellant to regularize service of the respondents and it is not permissible for this Court to direct regularization of their service in the face of Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra), it has to be left to the discretion and good conscience of the appellant to make appropriate order in respect of service conditions of the respondents, for which the direction to consider their case must be preserved. As observed in Jadav Nikeshkumar Mafatlal v. State of Gujarat (supra), absence of protection or injunction against termination of service should not necessarily mean that the employees whose services are required and who are presently in service have to be necessarily discharged. It is also suggested in that judgment that the Government may as well consider the issue of redefining the term and conditions of such contract of service on a just and reasonable basis. 6. It is also suggested in that judgment that the Government may as well consider the issue of redefining the term and conditions of such contract of service on a just and reasonable basis. 6. Therefore, in the facts and for the reasons discussed hereinabove, the appeal is partly allowed so as to modify the impugned order to the extent that the State Government will be at liberty to consider cases of the respondents for redefining the conditions of their service, but the respondents shall have no superior claim to permanent employment only on the basis that they have completed ten years of service on temporary and part-time basis against vacant posts. It may not be out of place to mention the constitutional goal of securing economic and social justice and the directive principles of state policy enshrined in the Preamble, and Article 43 in particular, in the Constitution. With these observations, the appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs. Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed.