Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 814 (GAU)

Pulin Kumar Sarma v. State of Assam

2010-10-12

ANIMA HAZARIKA

body2010
JUDGMENT Anima Hazarika, J. 1. The facts pleaded and relief sought for in these two writ petitions being same, those are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The brief fact of the cases are that the writ Petitioners numbering 28 in WP(C) No. 6224/2005 and 65 in WP(C) No. 5876/2005 were appointed as Work Charged employees in the then Flood Control Department of the Government of Assam, now known as Water Resources Department during the period 1988 to 1993 on fixed pay basis. By now they have completed about 22 years to 19 years in their posts without any break in their services. The date of engagement and the place of posting have been specifically mentioned in paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 of the writ petitions respectively. 3. The Government of Assam in the Personnel (B) Department had taken a policy decision in the matter of regularization of the services of persons working as Work Charged/Muster Roll under its various departments who were engaged prior to 1.4.1993. As per the said policy decision and commitment of the Government of Assam as enshrined in Letter No. ABP.30/98/18 dated 29.08.1998 issued by the Secretary, Government of Assam, Personal (B) Department, all Work Charged/Muster Roll workers engaged prior to cut off date 1.4.1993 were to be regularized immediately. The said letter was issued to all the Commissioners and Secretaries, Government of Assam, all Secretaries to the Government of Assam, all Deputy Commissioners, all Sub-Divisional Officers to take actions as per the above instruction. The contents of one of the said letter is quoted herein below: Government of Assam Office of the Deputy Commissioner: Darrang Mangaldai Copy of Govt. Letter No. ABP. 30/98/18 dated 29.8.98 from the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Personal (B) Deptt. Dispur addressed to (1) All Commissioners and Secretaries, Govt. of Assam. (2) All Secretaries to the Govt. of Assam. (3) All Deputy Commissioners. (4) All Sub-Divisional Officers. (5) All Heads of Deptts. Sub: Regularization of services Work Charged workers and Muster Roll workers and retention permanency of posts/offices. Sir, In terms of the discussion, it is again impressed upon to all concerned that the worked charged persons and Mr. workers who were engaged prior to 1.4.93 should be regularized immediately as per instructions contained in this Department letter No. ABP-176/91/Pt-I/216, dated 15.11.95, No. ABP. 176/91/Pt-I/188 dated 20.4.95 and No. ABP. Sir, In terms of the discussion, it is again impressed upon to all concerned that the worked charged persons and Mr. workers who were engaged prior to 1.4.93 should be regularized immediately as per instructions contained in this Department letter No. ABP-176/91/Pt-I/216, dated 15.11.95, No. ABP. 176/91/Pt-I/188 dated 20.4.95 and No. ABP. 176/91/Pt-1/213 dated 13.10.95. Action taken thereon may please be intimated expeditiously. As regards to the decision taken at para-8 of the minutes, necessary steps may be taken by the concerned Administrative Departments and Head of Departments for retention/permanency of posts/officers expeditiously in terms of existing Government instructions in this regard. Action taken position of this also may please be furnished early. Yours faithfully Sd/- Under Secretary to the Government of Assam, Personnel (B) Department. Abstract taken from the minutes of discussion held between Commissioner and Secretary Personnel Department and Assam State Employees Federation on 10.7.1988. 07. As regards the regularization of Woks Charged Workers it has been decided that Personnel (B) Department will issue instruction to all concerned to take steps for such regularization as per Government instructions. In regard to Muster Roll Employees it has been decided to examine the matter. 08. As regards retention/permanency posts/offices, it has been decided to reiterate Government instruction in this regard to all concerned. Also a meeting of all Departments will be chaired by the Chief Secretary on the problems of retention of temporary posts/preparation of service rules and permanency of Staff/officers at the earliest. Memo No. DPN 98/95/185 Dated 17.11.98 Copy to: (1) All Heads of offices of Mangaldai Sub-Division. (2) The Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Udalguri. Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Darrang: Mangaldai. 4. Pursuant to the said policy decision, the Deputy Chief Engineer, Flood Control Department issued letters to all Additional Chief Engineers, all Superintending Engineers, all Executive Engineers under Flood Control Department inter alia furnishing therewith a copy of the letter No. FC (1) 88/99/1 dated 24.9.99 and its enclosures forwarded by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Flood Control Department and requesting them to furnish the required information as per proforma enclosed therein in respect of the casual/Muster roll/work charged workers who were entertained before 1.4.93 after proper scrutiny. It was also mentioned that the information should reach the office of the Deputy Chief Engineer within 7 days from the date of receipt of the said letter. It was also mentioned that the information should reach the office of the Deputy Chief Engineer within 7 days from the date of receipt of the said letter. On the basis of the aforesaid direction the service particulars of all the Petitioners and other casual/muster roll/work charged employees of the Flood Control Department were verified and sent to the office of the Chief Engineer, Flood Control Department in Guwahati from various divisions and thereafter the said particulars were forwarded to the office of the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Water Resources Department. 5. The Petitioners' further case is that subsequently the authorities under Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 i.e. the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Water Resources Department as well as Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department have categorized the existing work charged/Muster roll/Casual workers into two distinct categories for the purposes of regularization under the following heads: (i) Fixed Pay Muster Roll/Work Charged/Casual. (ii) Non-fixed Pay Muster Roll/Work Charged/Casual. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid categorization, a decision was taken to regularize the services of Non-fixed Pay Muster Roll/Work Charged/Casual employees depriving the so called Fixed Pay Muster Roll/Work Charged/Casual employees which also include all the writ Petitioners. Thereafter, on the basis of the aforesaid categorization, an order has been issued by the Respondent No. 2 i.e. Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department vide No. FEC(ii) 1/2005/66 dated 22.8.05 which contains the cabinet decision dated 22.7.05 wherein a decision was taken to regularize the services of Work Charged/Muster Roll workers of different State Government Departments who were engaged prior to 1.4.93 and are in continuous service without interruption/break irrespective of their services. By the said cabinet decision cases of 582 numbers of Muster Roll workers who were engaged prior to 1.4.93 and fall under Non-fixed Pay category were taken up for regularization and were regularized accordingly. However, the cases of 624 numbers casual employees receiving fixed pay to which the Petitioners belong have been denied regularization vide Annexure-A of the abovementioned order dated 22.08.05, on the ground that: ...624 Nos. workers with fixed-pay (excluding 1 number of worker already attaining age of superannuation) furnished in part II of the list could not be considered for regularization as there is no decision of Govt. to regularize the services of fixed pay workers. 7. workers with fixed-pay (excluding 1 number of worker already attaining age of superannuation) furnished in part II of the list could not be considered for regularization as there is no decision of Govt. to regularize the services of fixed pay workers. 7. Subsequently, the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam issued a letter dated 31.10.06 contained under No. FEC(ii) 43/2006/100 to the effect that it has come to the notice of the Government in Finance Department that after regularization of services of good numbers of work charged and Muster roll workers who were engaged prior to 1.4.93, there are still many such workers in various departments who were engaged prior to 1.4.93 but their services have not yet been regularized although those workers are still in service. Some departments are also submitting proposal for regularization of the services of casual workers, fixed pay workers, wage earners or similarly situated other workers. Therefore, it has been decided to process again the proposal for regularization of the services of those work charged and Muster roll workers who were engaged prior to 1.4.93 and have been continuing in their service without any break but have not been regularized and also the proposal for regularization of services of casual workers, Fixed Pay Workers, Wage earners or any other similarly situated workers who were engaged prior to 1.4.93 and still working without any break. Hence, the concerned authorities were requested to furnish necessary proposals to the Finance (EC-II) Department by 30.11.06 as per the format prescribed therein. 8. This Court vide its order dated 24.05.07 directed the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam to file an affidavit on the following issues: 1. The different categories of casual employment under the State which are covered by the Cabinet decision dated 22.7.2005 and the other species of such employment which are excluded. 2. Whether the Cabinet decision dated 2.7.2005, notwithstanding the categories of casual employees covered by it, is a valid policy document consistent with Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 3. Whether the Office Memorandum bearing No. FEC. (II)1/2005/66 dated 22.8.2005 issued by the Finance Department engrafts a valid scheme for implementation of the policy decision of the State. 4. Whether there is any other scheme which has been introduced by the State for implementation of the aforesaid Cabinet decision. 5. Why 1.4.93 has been chosen as the cut off date. 6. (II)1/2005/66 dated 22.8.2005 issued by the Finance Department engrafts a valid scheme for implementation of the policy decision of the State. 4. Whether there is any other scheme which has been introduced by the State for implementation of the aforesaid Cabinet decision. 5. Why 1.4.93 has been chosen as the cut off date. 6. Whether 30,000/31,000 posts created, as stated in the Finance Department, Office Memorandum dated 22.8.2005, takes care of all the Work Charged/Muster Roll workers in the State who were engaged prior to 1.4.93 or are there more such workers whose cases are yet to be dealt with. 7. What is the approximate number of Muster Roll/Work Charged employees who were engaged after 1.4.93 and who are rendering continuous services till date. 8. What would be the number of other casual employees e.g. fixed pay workers, daily rated workers etc., in different Departments of the State engaged prior to 1.4.93 and after 1.4.93. 9. If the Cabinet decision dated 22.7.2005 is in respect of only Muster Roll/Work Charged employees how does the State contemplate to deal with the cases of other kinds of casual employees insofar as regularization of their services is concerned. 9. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam submitted two affidavits before this Court. Regarding issue No. 1 it has been inter alia stated in the affidavit that as per the policy decisions of the Government, approval of the Cabinet was obtained vide Cabinet Decision dated 22.7.05 for regularization of the services of those Work Charged and Muster Roll workers who were engaged prior to 1.4.93 and were in continuous service. However, regarding regularization of 624 numbers of workers with Fixed Pay engaged by the Water Resources department and Casual workers engaged by Panchayats, it has been stated that although proposals were received from the concerned department, the same could not be taken up for consideration as there was no policy decision to regularize the services of such categories of workers. In respect to issue No. 4 it has been stated that no other scheme has been introduced by the State Government for implementation of the aforesaid Cabinet decision dated 22.07.05. In respect to issue No. 4 it has been stated that no other scheme has been introduced by the State Government for implementation of the aforesaid Cabinet decision dated 22.07.05. Regarding the cut off date i.e. 1.4.93 (issue No. 5) it has been stated that problem of engagement of large number of Muster Roll and Work Charged workers, which are defined in Assam Financial Rules, as well as some other categories of workers like Casual Workers, Ad-hoc workers, Fixed Pay workers etc. which have not been defined in any Service Rules and engaged by various departments, in most cases, without any authority came to the notice of the Government in March, 1993. Accordingly, 1.4.93 has been taken as the cut off date. Regarding the issue No. 6 it has been stated that for the purpose of regularization of all Work Charged and Muster Roll workers engaged prior to 1.4.93 materials were called for from the concerned departments and regularization of services of such eligible workers were agreed to, as per materials furnished by the departments with the approval of the Cabinet. However, it appears that while submitting the required materials, some of these eligible workers were left out by the departments inadvertently. In respect of issue No. 7 it has been stated that some of the departments have furnished the information and other departments have not furnished the information. The two major work department's viz. Public Works Department and Water Resources Department have not furnished the required information. As per information received so far 238 numbers of Work Charged Workers and 1386 numbers of Muter Roll workers were engaged under these departments/authorities after 1.4.93. Regarding the issue No. 8 it is stated that Cabinet vide its decision dated 22.8.06 asked the Finance Department to examine the implication of regularization of services of remaining Work Charged, Muster Roll and similar other workers who were engaged prior to 1.4.93 and have been working continuously since then. As per the materials furnished by 29 departments there are 3720 numbers of such workers working in those departments. Information regarding engagement of workers on or after 1.4.93 were called for from all the departments. As per the information received, Casual workers engaged on or after 1.4.93 are 750 numbers, Fixed Pay workers are 1518 numbers and Daily Rated workers are 2347 numbers. Information regarding engagement of workers on or after 1.4.93 were called for from all the departments. As per the information received, Casual workers engaged on or after 1.4.93 are 750 numbers, Fixed Pay workers are 1518 numbers and Daily Rated workers are 2347 numbers. Regarding the issue No. 9 it has been stated that this Court vide its order dated 17.05.06 passed in WP.(C) No. 6222/03 and 173 other connected cases reported in 2006 (2) GLT 654: Jitendra Kalita and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors. imposed restriction on further regularization of the services of such workers. Before this order of the Court came to the notice of the Government, the Cabinet asked the Finance Department to examine the implications of regularization of services of other workers. However, in view of the abovementioned order passed by this Court no further progress have been made in this regard. 10. Heard Mr. B.C. Das, Learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. M. Nath, Advocate, appearing for the writ Petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, Assam, Mr. B. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resources Department and Mr. B.N. Gogoi, learned State counsel appearing for the Respondents. 11. Mr. Das, learned Senior counsel appearing for the writ Petitioners has submitted that all the writ Petitioners were engaged by the authorities of the then Flood Control Department from the year 1988 to March, 1993. By now the Petitioners have put on more than 22 years to 17 years of service under the aforesaid department without any break and till date they have been continuing in their services. Further, nowhere and never the Respondent authorities termed the engagement of the Petitioners as irregular or illegal appointment. The State Cabinet also gave its approval for regularization of the Work Charged and Muster Roll workers who were engaged prior to 1.4.93. However, while regularizing the services of Work Charged and Muster Roll workers, the authorities left out some of the Petitioners who have been continuously serving as Work Charged employees. Although the nature of work of Muster Roll workers and Casual employees on Fixed Pay are of same nature, such as maintenance and repair of embankments etc., the authorities have deprived the Casual employees the benefit of regularization along with the Muster Roll workers. Although the nature of work of Muster Roll workers and Casual employees on Fixed Pay are of same nature, such as maintenance and repair of embankments etc., the authorities have deprived the Casual employees the benefit of regularization along with the Muster Roll workers. The Cabinet decision and the proposal for regularization of the Muster Roll and Work Charged employees reveal that there was no categorization of employees for regularization as Fixed Pay and Non-fixed Pay. However, while implementing the Cabinet Decision, the authorities have brought out a categorization amongst the above-mentioned categories of employees who were engaged prior to 1.04.93 without any basis. Mr. Das contends that the sole permissible mode of categorization amongst the Muster Roll/Work Charged/Casual employees or whatever other nomenclatures attributed to such class of employees for the purpose of their preference in regularization is only "first come first", in other words the preference should be guided by the length of service i.e. the senior most of such employees should be regularized first followed by their juniors in terms of the respective date of entry in service of such employees. Hence, such categorization of Fixed Pay and Non-fixed Pay for the purpose of determining the criteria of regularization of service is totally illegal, irrational, arbitrary and unreasonable. Further, the said categorization can not form the rational basis of any regularization process as the same does not have any rational nexus with the purposes to be achieved. Mr. Das has also brought to the notice of this Court the letter dated 31.10.06 issued by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department wherein it has been mentioned that a decision has been taken to process again the proposal for regularization of the services of Casual Workers, Fixed Pay workers, Wage earners or any other similarly situated workers who were engaged prior to 1.04.93 and are still working without any break along with other Work Charged/Muster Roll workers who were similarly engaged prior to 1.4.93. 12. So far the imposition of restriction for further regularization of services of aforesaid workers by this Court in its judgment dated 17.5.06 in the case of Jitendra Kalita and Ors. (supra) as well as judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) and Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 is concerned, Mr. (supra) as well as judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) and Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 is concerned, Mr. Das submits that in the instant case the authorities on the basis of illegal categorization i.e. Fixed Pay and Non-fixed Pay employees as mentioned above have regularized the services of Work Charged and Muster Roll workers who were Non-fixed Pay employees thereby leaving out various Work Charged/Casual employees including the Petitioners some of whom have put on about 22 years to 17 years of service and are much senior to the employees already regularized by the authorities. Further, since the engagement of the Petitioners by the concerned authorities have not been found to be irregular or illegal, hence on this background the abovementioned judgments are not applicable inasmuch as there is no restriction imposed by the Court for regularization of services of the Petitioners. On the abovementioned factual matrix this Court will be justified in directing the authorities to regularize the services of the Petitioners on the basis of their seniority i.e. from the date of their engagement as Work Charged/Casual employees in adherence to Government policies and judicial pronouncement. 13. Mr. D. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department relying on the statements made in the affidavits filed by the Chief Secretary as well as the Finance Department, has submitted that although steps have been taken to process again the proposal for regularization of the services of the Work Charged, Muster Roll, Casual workers, Fixed Pay workers or any other similarly situated workers who were engaged prior to 1.4.93, however, due to imposition of restriction for further regularization of employees in the cases of Jitendra Kalita and Ors. (supra) and also Uma Devi (supra), further steps could not be taken for regularization of the Petitioners and similarly situated persons. 14. Law regarding regularization of Casual, Ad-hoc and Daily Wage basis workers came up fo consideration before Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) wherein the Apex Court had occasioned to point out the bounden duty of the State to adhere to the Constitutional Scheme of Public employment and to desist from long time actions giving rise to what is termed as "litigious employment". The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that mere long continuance of employees on irregular basis will not entitle such employees to claim equal treatment with the regularly recruited employees and no legitimate expectations can arise in favour of such employees recruited on irregular basis. Although, the decision of Uma Devi (supra) has been pressed to service by the Respondents as a defense of their action and to oppose the prayers made by the Petitioners and also to remind the Court its inherent limitations in the matter of Mandamus directing regularization of employees, nothing has been brought forth by the Respondents to show that the Petitioners were illegally or irregularly appointed. Rather to defend its action of regularization of services of some Work Charged/Muster Roll workers as contained in its memo dated 22.08.05 about the regularization of the service of Work Charged/of Muster Roll workers of different departments engaged prior to 1.04.93 including the workers of Water Resources Department, it has been averred by the Respondent No. 2 that the Petitioners are neither Work charged nor Muster roll workers and hence, regularization of such workers can not be taken up for consideration at this stage. However, the categorical statements and facts contained in para 4 of the writ petition regarding engagement of the Petitioners during the period starting from 1988 till the year 1992 has not been denied by any of the Respondents. The fact of engagement of these Petitioners since the period starting from 1988 till the year 1992 is not disputed by any of the Respondents. The fact that cases of various persons of various departments entitled to be considered by the Government in terms of its various executive decisions were forwarded duly by the respective departments for consideration by the finance department finds credence from the contents of the circular/letter dated 31.10.06 (Annexure-A to the affidavit dated 28.03.08) issued by the Respondent No. 2 the veracity of which again is not denied by the Respondents. The Court is not confronted with any situation whereby it has been called upon to issue a Mandamus directing the Government to regularize the service of its employees, rather, the pleadings of the parties unequivocally reflect that the Government of Assam in the Water Resources Department has in fact decided to regularize its employees engaged/appointed prior to 1.04.93. The Court is not confronted with any situation whereby it has been called upon to issue a Mandamus directing the Government to regularize the service of its employees, rather, the pleadings of the parties unequivocally reflect that the Government of Assam in the Water Resources Department has in fact decided to regularize its employees engaged/appointed prior to 1.04.93. What is disputed before this Court is the mode of process by which the benefit of this regularization process has been advanced by the Respondent State to a selected few. It is the case of the writ Petitioners that while undertaking the process of selection, the Government has resorted to unreasonable classification of employees thereby selecting 582 numbers of employees without any reasonable basis while leaving aside the claims of 624 numbers of other workers that includes the Petitioners also. While arguing in favour of such classification the Respondent State contends that the Petitioner and for that matter the group of 624 numbers of workers are neither Work charged workers nor Muster Roll workers and hence the regularization of their services could not be taken up at this stage. The definition of work charged and casual employee have been exhaustively given in the Full Bench decision in the case of Jiten Kalita and Ors. (supra). While charting out a short history regarding the evolution of the process of engagement of workers by several engineering and work related departments of the Government of Assam in addition to the employees working under the State in regular cadre, the Full Bench in Jiten Kalita (supra) summarized the points at para 15 as follows: 15. Why the names initially included in the Muster Roll or a person employed against a particular work were allowed to continue for decades is beyond reasonable comprehension. A Muster Roll is a roll of employees engaged in different engineering and works related departments of the State to meet specific exigencies of work whereas a Work Charged employees is one who is engaged against a specific work and whose salary is charged against such work. The Muster Roll is not meant to be a record of the employees engaged in a Department. It is primarily a document required to be maintained to facilitate payment of wages. The Muster Roll is not meant to be a record of the employees engaged in a Department. It is primarily a document required to be maintained to facilitate payment of wages. Similarly, the works executed by a department against which salaries of the engaged workers can be charged are works that fall outside the area of routine works undertaken by the Department. Time an again it has been emphasized by the judicial verdict that such employment ought not to be continued for long; either such services are to be dispensed with after completion of the work or if the work persists the State must make all endeavours to bring such employment on the main track of service under the State. Inclusion in the Muster Roll or engagement against specific works does not follow adherence to any acceptable principle of recruitment in public service. The eligibility, suitability and fitness of such employees are hardly decided at the time of their induction. That is precisely why Courts had forwarded upon the continuance of such appointment for long as long employment, by itself, have always given rise to claims for regularization. Regularization not being a mode of appointment and the existence of a large work force under the State on an uncertain basis, having been perceived by all concerned, to be posing a human problem, Courts have repeatedly emphasized that the State must make all endeavours not to allow the situation to go out of hand so as to become constitutional aberration. 15. On the face of the admitted facts that the Petitioners have been engaged by the State during the period of 1988 to 1.04.93 an allowed to work without any break under the State, it is really for the State Respondents to come out with a third nomenclature, if any, regarding the types and nature of their engagement so long the wisdom of the State does not permit it to use the terms Muster Roll/Work Charged to suit these employees. What prompted the State to make a distinction between fixed pay workers and non-fixed pay workers and thus to clothe the classification of a set of employees with reasonableness is also not discernible from the pleadings of the Respondents. What prompted the State to make a distinction between fixed pay workers and non-fixed pay workers and thus to clothe the classification of a set of employees with reasonableness is also not discernible from the pleadings of the Respondents. In fact, what prompted the State to deny full time scale of pay to the present set of 624 numbers of employees including the Petitioners and to discriminate them against the 582 numbers of employees who were accorded the benefit of regular time scale of pay is also not understood. No justification to support the State action on the face of the statements made on oath in the writ petitions could convincingly set forth by the Respondent State before this Court. In fact, pursuant to the order dated 24.05.07 and 28.03.08 passed by this Court although the Chief Secretary of the State has filed affidavits on two occasions, however, the same do not reveal the basis of classifications of employees as "fixed pay" and "non-fixed pay" thereby denying the benefit of regularization to the Petitioners and the similarly situated employees. Further, this classification apart from being unreasonable does not seem to have any tangible nexus with the purpose sought to be achieved by the cabinet decision dated 22.08.06. Hence the classification made by the State on the basis of scale of pay i.e. fixed pay and non-fixed pay so as to categories and classify otherwise homogeneously situated group of employees and thereby to create two artificial groups amongst them for the purpose of regularization of their services in terms of the cabinet decision dated 22.08.06 is held to be unreasonable and unjustified. 16. The other contention raised on behalf of the Finance Department is that no employee can claim vested right for regularization of its services and Court also should not direct regularization of the services of Muster Roll and Work Charged employees in terms of the office memorandum dated 20.4.95. In the case at hand, as already stated above, the Court is not saddled with the prayer for issuing a Mandamus to regularize the appointment of any employee of the State. Rather, the present case reveals that the Respondent State has in fact taken up the process of regularization of the employees of Water Resources department. In the case at hand, as already stated above, the Court is not saddled with the prayer for issuing a Mandamus to regularize the appointment of any employee of the State. Rather, the present case reveals that the Respondent State has in fact taken up the process of regularization of the employees of Water Resources department. The dispute is limited to the extent to the mode in which such process of regularization is sought to be carried out thereby resulting in deprivation, hostile discrimination and exclusion of a particular group of employees from the process of consideration of the regularization of the services. While it is not for the Court to run the administration of the State and to direct regularization of its employees in terms of particular office memorandum, it is definitely within the purview of power of judicial scrutiny of this Court to intervene in the process of implementation of the exercise of regularization of the employees of the State, more so, if such process of exercise manifestly offend the constitutional mandates. 17. At this point, the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Uma Devi, especially paragraph 53 thereof can be gainfully referred to. The same is quoted herein below: 53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa ( 1967 (1) SCR 128 ), R.N. Nanjundappa 1972 (1) SCC 409 and B.N. Nagarajan [ 1979(4) SCC 507 ] 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 regularization 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. The question of regularization 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 regularize as a one-time measure, the service 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 required 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.... 18. In a recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 3.08.10 in Civil Appeal No. (s) 6208 of 2010: State of Karnataka and Ors. v. M.L. Kesari and Ors. the Apex Court while taking note of the aforesaid exception granted by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Uma Devi (supra) has summarised the principle regarding "regularization" of temporary/Work Charged/Muster Roll Workers/Casual Employees etc. at para 5 as thus: 5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against 'regularization' enunciated in Uma Devi, if the following conditions are fulfilled; (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned posts without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any Court or Tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. Uma Devi casts a duty upon the concerned Government or instrumentality, to take steps to regularize the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of Courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi, directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10.4.2006). It was further explained in paragraph 6 of the said judgment as follows: 6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily wage or ad-hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of Courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualifications for the post and if so, regularize their services. 19. While taking note of the fact that even after expiry of the period of six months term set out in the judgment of Uma Devi, several cases of daily wage, Casual and Ad-hoc employees are still pending before the Courts as a result of non commencement of one-time regularization process by various state or its instrumentalities, it was clarified by the Apex Court in M.L. Kesari (supra) that the entitlement of consideration vested on the employees in terms of the direction made in para 53 of the Uma Devi judgment will not get extinguished and such employees will not loose their rights for consideration of their regularization. By interpreting paragraph 53 of the Uma Devi judgment it was conclusively ordered that: the one time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitle to be considered in terms of para 53 of Uma Devi, are so considered. By interpreting paragraph 53 of the Uma Devi judgment it was conclusively ordered that: the one time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitle to be considered in terms of para 53 of Uma Devi, are so considered. Thus, considering the cases of persons appointed on daily wage basis during 1985 and 1987 the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment dated 3.08.10 have issued the directions to the employer in that case to undertake the exercise of general one time regularization of the employees in terms of paragraph 53 of the Uma Devi judgment taking within its fold all persons who had worked for more than 10 years as on 10.04.06, i.e. the date of decision of Uma Devi. 20. The law laid down by the Apex Court by the judgment dated 3.08.10 in the case of M.L. Kesari (supra) is squarely applicable in the present case. Further, after taking into consideration the materials on record including the affidavits filed by the Chief Secretary of the State, this Court do not find any basis on which the artificial classification of employees of Water Resources Department as "fixed pay" and "non-fixed pay" have been made by the Respondents thereby depriving the Petitioners from the benefit of regularization which was granted to the particular group of employees terming them as "non-fixed pay employees. 21. Consequently, this Court is inclined to pass the following directions: (I) The State Respondents shall immediately take up the process of regularization of the Petitioners in terms of the decision and law quoted above, more specifically the direction contained in paragraph 53 of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) and Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 read with the directions rendered in Civil Appeal No. (s) 6208 of 2010: State of Karnataka and Ors. v. M.L. Kesari and Ors. taking within its fold of consideration all such Petitioners who have worked on casual or daily wage, muster roll or ad-hoc basis etc. for more than 10 (ten) years continuously as on 10.04.2006 without availing protection of any Courts' or Tribunals' order. v. M.L. Kesari and Ors. taking within its fold of consideration all such Petitioners who have worked on casual or daily wage, muster roll or ad-hoc basis etc. for more than 10 (ten) years continuously as on 10.04.2006 without availing protection of any Courts' or Tribunals' order. (II) The date of regularization of the Petitioners would be decided by taking into consideration the date of engagement of similarly situated employees appointed/engaged in the Water Resources Department as casual, daily wage, ad-hoc employees, muster roll workers including those who have been regularized by the Respondents being the "non-fixed pay employees". (III) This exercise culminating in final order of the authorities shall be completed within a period of 6(six) months from the date of this judgment. 22. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed in terms of the aforesaid directions. 23. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Petition allowed