Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 12 (GAU)

Bimal Saha v. State of Tripura

2011-01-05

UTPALENDU BIKAS SAHA

body2011
JUDGMENT U.B. Saha, J 1. The petitioner who is a Daily Rated Worker ('DRW') has filed this writ petition seeking, inter alia, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise his service as Group D employee in view of the policy decision of the respondents in its memorandum dated 22.2.2007 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). 2. I have heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. M. Choudhry, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. B. Datta, learned State counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The pleaded, case of the petitioner is that, the writ petitioner Sri. Bimal Saha was engaged as a DRW on fixed pay basis with effect from 22.6.1987 under the Executive Engineer, PWD Division-II, Mohanpur, respondent No. 4 herein and has been receiving his pay form the office of the said respondent but posted in the office of the Superintending Engineer, Circle-4, Government of Tripura, Netaji Chowmuhani, Agartala, respondent No. 3 herein since 1993. The service of the petitioner was earlier utilised as a guard and for the last two years, his service is being utilised as a peon. He has been receiving pay more or less Rs. 2,100 per month and such payment is deposited in the Bank account of the petitioner on monthly basis since 2005. In the year 2007, the Finance Department, Government of Tripura vide its memorandum No.F.10(2)-fin(g)/2005 dated 22.2.2007 decided to regularise the service of the DRWs/casual workers/contingent workers engaged on full time basis in the different, departments with or without the concurrence of the Finance Department and completed 15 years of service as on 31.3.2006. In the said memorandum, it is also provided that requirement of age as per the Recruitment Rules would be treated as relaxed for the said process of regularisation and even the requirement of educational qualification as per the Recruitment Rules would also be treated as relaxed so far as regularisation to Group D posts are concerned. It is also provided in the said memorandum that the eligible workers would be provided pay scale in the relevant grade for their regularisation with effect from 1.1.2007. All Departments of Government of Tripura were requested to take action immediately for implementation of the aforesaid decisions. It is also provided in the said memorandum that the eligible workers would be provided pay scale in the relevant grade for their regularisation with effect from 1.1.2007. All Departments of Government of Tripura were requested to take action immediately for implementation of the aforesaid decisions. It is also pleaded by the petitioner that prior to issuance of the aforesaid memorandum dated 22.2.2007, the Government had also decided to regularise the service of such DRWs/casual workers/contingent workers on their completion of 17 years of service. The writ petitioner had completed 15 years of continuous service as DRW on fixed pay basis under the respondents on 22.2.2007 and as he has been discharging his duties for more than 15 years as DRW on fixed pay basis, he is covered by, the memorandum dated 22.2.2007 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) issued by the Finance Department, Government of Tripura and his service is required to be regularised in view of the aforesaid memorandum and he is entitled to be appointed to a Group D post on regular basis with effect from 1.1.2007 with all benefits of service including arrears of pay as the service of all his juniors were regularised by the respondents in view of the aforesaid memorandum. It is also pleaded by the petitioner in his writ petition that the respondent No. 3 while responding to the letter of the respondent No. 2 dated 10.8.2005 informed the respondent No. 2 that the petitioner was engaged as DRW with effect from 22.6.1987 but during submission of the list of DPWs and other categories to the Finance Department, the designation of the petitioner was wrongly shown as Contract (fixed) worker instead of DRW through oversight as well as typographical mistake and requested the respondent No. 2 to make necessary correction and to regularise the service of the petitioner as he had completed 17 years of continuous and satisfactory service as on 21.6.2004. In support of the aforesaid contention, the petitioner annexed the letter dated 13.3.2006 written by the respondent No. 3 to the respondent No. 2, the Chief Engineer, PWD (R&B).The respondent No. 4 in whose office the petitioner was initially engaged has also forwarded a copy of the engagement letter of the petitioner to the respondent No. 2 vide his letter dated 19.12.2006 and the respondent No. 2 by memorandum dated 10.12.2007 informed the respondent No. 4 that before issuance of offer of appointment to the DRWs who completed 15 years of service as on 31.3.2006, certain documents, namely, educational qualification certificate, original caste certificate, original engagement order and age proof certificate in respect of 10, DRWs including the writ petitioner were necessary. As per the direction of the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 3, however, forwarded the original educational qualification certificate of the petitioner in proof of his educational qualification as well as age and the employment exchange registration card of the petitioner to the respondent No. 2 through peon book. The respondent No. 4 also forwarded the original hand receipt voucher No. 342 dated 12.7.1988 in respect of the petitioner. In support of the aforesaid contention in the writ petition the petitioner also annexed the letters dated 19.12.2006, 10.12.2007 and 31.12.2007 as Annexures-4, 5 and 6 respectively. The petitioner further pleaded in his petition that the respondents regularised the services of all similarly situated persons except the petitioner and the persons whose services have been regularised all of them are juniors to the petitioner as DRWs which would be evident from Annexure 4 to the writ petition from which it appears that Sl. Nos. 1 to 9 were engaged as DRWs during the period from 1989 to 1991, but the petitioner was engaged on 2.6.1987. As the petitioner's case was not considered and his service was not regularised, he made representations from time to time to the respondents for regularising his service with effect from 1.1.2007 as per the policy decision of the respondents. 1 to 9 were engaged as DRWs during the period from 1989 to 1991, but the petitioner was engaged on 2.6.1987. As the petitioner's case was not considered and his service was not regularised, he made representations from time to time to the respondents for regularising his service with effect from 1.1.2007 as per the policy decision of the respondents. But the respondent No. 2 unfairly and discriminately has not yet regularised the service of the petitioner though he was entitled to be regularised in his service to a Group D post under the respondents as per the policy/guidelines of the Government and on completion of 17 years of service and in any case under the decision contained in memorandum dated 22.2.2007 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) with all benefit of salary including back wages. In view of the unfair, arbitrary and discriminatory action of the respondents, particularly the respondent No. 2, the petitioner raised raised voice for protection of his right by this writ petition. 4. The respondents by way of filing their counter affidavit denied the allegations of the petitioner and contended that the petitioner was working as a part-time worker (sweeper) since 1987 and he applied for the first time in the year 2006 for correction of his designation on the basis of some hand receipts (wage slips). The respondents in their counter affidavit tried to brush aside the contentions of the petitioner's eligibility to be considered for regularisation as per the Government policy, inter alia, that the petitioner was never engaged as a full time DRW rather he was engaged as a part-time worker (sweeper) on contract basis and that being so, he is not covered by the policy of the Government particularly the policy of the Finance Department as enumerated in memorandum dated 2.2.2007, as the said memorandum is applicable only for the persons who are engaged as full-time DRWs/casual workers/fixed pay employees. It is further stated in the counter that after collection of all particulars, the PWD prepared a consolidated list of all DRW/casual workers/part-time workers, etc., and sent the same to the Finance Department for record and accordingly, the Finance Department prepared a consolidated list and circulated the same to all treasury/sub-treasury offices and DDOs for preparation of their wage bills as per approved list, wherein the name of the petitioner has been shown as part-time worker (fixed) as per division list. The further case of the respondents is that the petitioner was engaged as part-time worker for sweeping work with effect from 2.6.1987 and the payment of his wages was made through hand receipt @ Rs. 8.46 per day and in the different wage bill statements of the various Division Offices the petitioner's name has been shown as sweeper/casual worker/casual, labourer/contract basis (fixed). But the authority after scrutiny of all documents and papers decided the petitioner as a part-time worker as per wage slip from 1992 to 2004. The respondents also stated in their counter affidavit that the department processed the name of the petitioner to the Finance Department for approval as fixed pay worker instead of part-time worker but the Finance/Department has approved his name as part-time worker and that being so the answering respondents considered the petitioner as a part-time worker and his service was not regularised. 5. Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that it is admitted position that the petitioner was engaged in the year 1987 but dispute is relating to his designation whether he was engaged as a DRW/fixed pay or full time worker or Group-D part-time worker and whether his case is covered by the memorandum dated 22.2.2007 (Annexure-2) or not. According to him, the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the aforesaid memorandum dated 22.2.2007 and not only that petitioner is also entitled to get the benefit of the exception contained in paras 44 and 53 of the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 . The service of the petitioner was continued as a full time DRW for more than ten years by the State respondents without any intervention or protection of the interim order of any court. Hence, the engagement of the petitioner cannot be said to be an illegal one but at best can be an irregular engagement and irregular engagement can be regularised in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court in. 6. Mr. Hence, the engagement of the petitioner cannot be said to be an illegal one but at best can be an irregular engagement and irregular engagement can be regularised in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court in. 6. Mr. Bhowmik further contended that it is the respondents who engaged the petitioner as DRW for sweeping works and the payment was made through hand receipt as a DRW which would be evident from the letter of the respondent No. 3 to the respondent No. 2 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) wherein it is specifically stated that the petitioner was engaged as DRW for sweeping works of the office with effect from 22.6.1987 and payment was made through hand receipt as DRW @ Rs. 8.46 per day. But during submission of list of DRWs and other categories to the Finance Department, the designation of the petitioner was shown as contract (fixed.) worker instead of DRW through oversight as well typographical mistake and the respondent No. 3 also requested to the respondent No. 2 to correct the same and wherein it is also mentioned that the petitioner has completed 17 years of continuous and satisfactory service as on 21.6.2004 arid he is entitled to avail of opportunity to regularise his service as per the policy adopted by the Government. 7. He again contended is that when the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, particularly the respondent No. 3 in whose office, the petitioner was working admitted that he was discharging his duties as a DRW and not as a part-time fixed pay worker, then how the respondents were treating the petitioner as a part-time worker. From the memorandum dated 10.12.2007 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) it is admitted position that the petitioner was senior to the persons whose names were shown in Sl. Nos. 1 to 9 and the original engagement letter of the petitioner was sent by the respondent No. 4 to the, respondent No. 2 wherein also the petitioner was shown as DRW Group-D and his educational qualification was shown as Class-VIII passed. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was engaged as contract Group-D employee on part-time basis merely on the basis of some wage slips which were prepared by the authority concerned. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was engaged as contract Group-D employee on part-time basis merely on the basis of some wage slips which were prepared by the authority concerned. He further contended that when the concerned Department, i.e., PWD under whom the petitioner was engaged and entered his service considered him as a DRW for all purposes, the Finance Department has no authority to treat him as a part-time worker. While urging for the benefit of exception contained in para 53 of Umadevi (3) (supra) Mr. Bhowmik has contended that the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 , after taking note of Umadevi (3) (supra) discussed regarding irregular appointment in contrast to illegal appointment and ultimately held that appointments of qualified persons made against sanctioned posts without following process of open competition are irregular appointments and in the instant case also, the respondents without following the process of open competition engaged the present petitioner who fulfilled all other conditions enumerated in the Recruitment Rules for the post of Group-D employee including educational qualification. 8. Mr. Bhomwik finally contended that the petitioner is fully covered by the policy decision of the Government in Memorandum dated 22.2.2007 as well as the exception contained in para 53 of Umadevi (3) (supra). Hence, it, would be proper for this court to issue a writ directing the State respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner as a Group-D employee from the date when his juniors whose names are there in Annexure-4 were regularised with all financial benefits. 9. Mr. B. Datta, leaned State counsel while countering the contention of Mr. Bhowmik submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of regularisation of his service since he was never appointed in any sanctioned post rather he was engaged as a part-time worker on daily wages. He further contended that merely because a part-time worker like the petitioner continued for a long time does not entitled him to be regularised on the strength of memorandum dated 22.2.2007 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) wherein it is specifically mentioned that the persons who were engaged for full time basis as DRWs/casual workers/contingent workers and who fulfil the criteria mentioned therein. He further contended that in the said memorandum (Annexure-2), it is specifically mentioned that the DRWs/casual workers/contingent workers engaged on full time basis in different Departments with or without concurrence of the Finance Department and have completed 15 years of service as on 31.3.2006 other than permanent labourers/part-time workers/Anganwadi workers and helpers/Homeguards/teachers and, workers engaged under SSA and other schemes/programmes will be considered for this process of regularisation as per norms attached meaning, thereby the part-time worker has been excluded from getting the benefit of regularisation under the policy as enumerated in the aforesaid memorandum dated 22.2.2007. Though he ultimately conceded that the names of the petitioner has been shown at Sl. No. 10 in memorandum dated 10.12.2007 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), i.e., the list of DRWs/fixed pay/casual workers who have completed 15 years of service as on 31.3.2006 but the fact remains that the petitioner has been engaged as part-time worker since his joining. Therefore, question of regularisation of his service on the basis of memorandum dated 22.2.2007 does not come into play. In support of his contention that the petitioner was engaged as a part-time worker, he placed reliance on Npte No. 6 of the Under Secretary, Finance dated 6.12.2007 (Annexure-R/1 to the writ petition) as well as the wage slip for the month of July, 1992 wherein it is mentioned the petitioner as sweeper and in the wage slip for the month of April, 2004, the petitioner has been shown a contract Group-D. He finally contended that the case of the petitioner does not come within the exception contained in para 53 of Umadevi (3) (supra) rather the case of the petitioner is covered by paras 8 and 55 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Umadevi (3) (supra). 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the relevant records as available, it would be proper for this court to consider the paragraphs 8, 44, 53 and 55 of the decision of Umadevi (3) (supra). Accordingly, these paragraphs are reproduced hereinbelow : - 8. In Civil Appeals Nos. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the relevant records as available, it would be proper for this court to consider the paragraphs 8, 44, 53 and 55 of the decision of Umadevi (3) (supra). Accordingly, these paragraphs are reproduced hereinbelow : - 8. In Civil Appeals Nos. 3595-612 of 1999 the respondents therein who were temporarily engaged on daily wages in the Commercial Taxes Department in some of the districts of the State of Karnataka claim that they worked in the Department based on such engagement for more than 10 years and hence they are entitled to be made permanent employees of the Department, entitled to all the benefits of regular employees. They were engaged for the first time in the years 1985-86 and in the teeth of orders not to make such appointments issued on 3.7.1984. Though the Director of Commercial Taxes recommended that they be absorbed, the Government did not accede to that recommendation. These respondents thereupon approached the Administrative Tribunal in the year 1997 with their claim. The Administrative Tribunal rejected their claim rending that they had not made out a right either to get wages equal to that of others regularly employed or for regularisation. Thus, the applications filed were dismissed. The respondents approached the High Court of Karnataka challenging the decision of the Administrative Tribunal. It is seen that the High Court without really coming to grips with the question falling for decision in the light of the findings of the Administrative Tribunal and the decisions of this court, proceeded to order that they are entitled to wages equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service with effect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed. It may be noted that this gave retrospective effect to the judgment of the High Court by more than 12 years. The High Court also issued a command to the State to consider their cases for regularisation within a period of four months from the date of receipt of that order. The High Court seems to have proceeded on the basis that, whether they were appointed before 1.7.1984, a situation covered by the decision of this court in Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Assn. The High Court seems to have proceeded on the basis that, whether they were appointed before 1.7.1984, a situation covered by the decision of this court in Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Assn. v. State of Karnataka, (1990) 2 SCC 396 and the scheme framed pursuant to the direction thereunder, or subsequently, since they have worked for a period of 10 years, they were entitled to equal pay for equal work from the very inception of their engagement on daily wages and were also entitled to be considered for regularisation in their posts. *** *** *** 44. The concept of "equal pay for equal work" is different from the concept of conferring permanency on those who have been appointed on ad hoc basis, temporary basis, or based on no process of selection as envisaged by the rules. This court has in various decisions applied the principle of equal pay for equal work and has laid down the parameters for the application of that principle. The decisions are rested on the concept of equality enshrined in our constitution in the light of the directive principles in that behalf. But the acceptance of that principle cannot lead to a position where the court could direct that appointments made without following the due procedure established by law, be deemed permanent or issue directions to treat them as permanent. Doing so, would be negation of the principle of equality of opportunity. The power to make an order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before this court, would not normally be used for giving the go by to the procedure established by law in the matter of public employment. Take the situation arising in the cases before us from the State of Karnataka. Therein, after Dharwad, decision (supra) the Government had issued repeated directions and mandatory orders that no temporary or ad hoc employment or engagement be given. Some of the authorities and Departments had ignored those directions or defied those directions and had continued to give employment, specifically interdicted by the orders issued by the executive. Some of the appointing officers have even been punished for their defiance. Some of the authorities and Departments had ignored those directions or defied those directions and had continued to give employment, specifically interdicted by the orders issued by the executive. Some of the appointing officers have even been punished for their defiance. It would not be just or proper to pass an order in exercise of jurisdiction under articles 226 or 32 of the Constitution or in exercise of power under article 142 of the Constitution permitting those persons engaged, to be absorbed or to be made permanent, based on their appointments or engagements. Complete justice would be justice according to law and though it would be open to this court to mould the relief, this court would not grant a relief which would amount to perpetuating an illegality. *** *** *** 53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa, AIR 1967 SC 1071 , R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah, (1972) 1 SCC 409 and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka, (1979) 4 SCC 507 , 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 or 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. 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 sub-judice, 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. *** *** *** 55. In cases relating to service in the Commercial Taxes Department, the High Court has directed that those engaged on daily wages, be paid wages equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in Government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed. The objection taken was to the direction for payment from the dates of engagement. We find that the High Court had clearly gone wrong in directing that these employees be paid salary equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in Government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively engaged or appointed. It was not often to the High Court to impose such an obligation on the State when the very question before the High Court in the case was whether these employees were entitled to have equal pay for equal work so called and were entitled to any other benefit. They had also been engaged in the teeth of directions not to do so. We are, therefore, of the view that, at best, the Division Bench of the High Court should have directed that wages equal to the salary that is being paid to regular employees be paid to these daily-wage employees with effect from the date of its judgment. Hence, that part of the direction of the Division Bench is modified and it is directed that these daily-wage earners be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of employees of their cadre in the Commercial Taxes Department in Government service, form the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. Since, they are only daily-wage, earners, there would be no question of other allowances being paid to them. Since, they are only daily-wage, earners, there would be no question of other allowances being paid to them. In view of our conclusion, that the courts are not expected to issue directions for making such persons permanent in service, we set aside that part of the direction of the High Court directing the Government to consider their cases for regularisation. We also notice that the High Court has hot adverted to the aspect as to whether it was regularisation or it was giving permanency that was being directed by the High Court. In such a situation, the direction in that regard will stand deleted and the appeals filed by the State would stand allowed to that extent. If sanctioned posts are vacant they are said to be vacant the State will take immediate steps for filling those posts by a regular process of selection. But when regular recruitment is undertaken, the respondents in CAs Nos. 3595-612 and those in the Commercial Taxes Department similarly situated, will be allowed to compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for the recruitment and giving some weightage for their haying been engaged for work in the Department for a significant period of time. That would be the extent of the exercise of power by this court under article 142 of the Constitution to do justice to them. 11. In Umadevi (3) (supra), the Apex Court laid down the law regarding the rights of the employees appointed on temporary/contractual/casual/daily wages or ad hoc basis wherein the Apex Court observed that public employment should be given in a fair and equal manner by providing opportunities to those who are eligible and waiting for employment. When the rules framed under article 309 are enforced and/or Government instructions/policies covered the field, no regularisation of service is permissible in exercise of the executive power of the State Government and even the court has also no power to give direction to regularise the service of those employees who are appointed contrary to the provisions of the rules framed under article309 and/or Government instructions/policy as the same would close the door of opportunity to the thousands of unemployed youths who are waiting for employment following the procedures as prescribed by law. 12. It would be evident from para 53 of Umadevi (3) (supra) as stated supra, the Apex Court in the said paragraph dealt with irregular appointments, not illegal appointments. 12. It would be evident from para 53 of Umadevi (3) (supra) as stated supra, the Apex Court in the said paragraph dealt with irregular appointments, not illegal appointments. The Apex Court in the said judgment in para 15 also referred to the earlier judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa, AIR 1967 SC 1071 and R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah, (1972) 1 SCC 409 . In the case of R.N. Nanjundappa (supra), the Apex Court also noted "If the appointment itself is infraction of rules and if it is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution illegality cannot be regularised. Ratification or regularisation is possible of an act which is within the power and province of the authority but there has been some noncompliance with procedure or manner which does not go to the root of the appointment. Regularisation cannot be said to be a mode of recruitment." In para 16, the Apex Court further noted, inter alia, that "we have, therefore, to keep this distinction in mind and proceed on the basis that only something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised and that it alone can be regularised and granting permanence of employment is a totally different concept and cannot be equated with regularisation. The case of Umadevi (3) has been subsequently considered by the Apex Court in various cases. Some of those are: Surinder Prasad Tiwari v. U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and Others, (2006) 7 SCC 684 ; Punjab Water Supply and Sewarage Board v. Harihar Yadav, AIR 2007 SC 1082; State of Punjab v. Bahadur Singh and Others, (2008) 15 SCC 737 ; State of Karnataka v. G.V. Chandrashekhar, (2009) 4 SCC 342 etc. In all the cases, almost the identical situation arose for consideration like the case in hand. 13. Mr. Datta relying upon the paras 6, 12, and 13 of the decision in Satyprakash v. State of Bihar, AIR 2010 SCW 2112 contended that the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis as part-time worker and he was never appointed against any sanctioned post. 13. Mr. Datta relying upon the paras 6, 12, and 13 of the decision in Satyprakash v. State of Bihar, AIR 2010 SCW 2112 contended that the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis as part-time worker and he was never appointed against any sanctioned post. Therefore, he would not get the benefit of the directions contained in para 53 of Umadevi (3) (supra) case which are applicable to only those who are appointed irregularly against any sanctioned post not for illegally appointed person and further, according to him, the petitioner was not engaged irregularly. His whole engagement was illegal and, therefore, his case does not come within the purview of para 53 of Umadevi (3) (supra) as well as the policy of the State Government in memorandum dated 22.2.2007, he contended. 14. In para 6 of Satyaprakash (supra), the Apex Court took note of Umadevi (3) (supra) case and held that the direction issued in Umadevi (3) (supra) could not be said to be consistent with the scheme of public employment. In para 6 of Satyprakash (supra), the Apex Court considering the case of the writ petitioners appellants therein who had worked on daily wages for over 10 years and had approached for benefit given in para 53 of Umadevi (3) (supra) held that the direction issued in para 53 of Umadevi (3) (supra) could not be said to be consistent with the constitutional scheme of public employment and further held that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. Their Lordships were also of the view that the law laid down by the Apex Court, the direction sought for by the appellants writ petitioners therein cannot be granted. Their Lordships were also of the view that the law laid down by the Apex Court, the direction sought for by the appellants writ petitioners therein cannot be granted. In para 13 of the said judgment, the Apex Court noted inter alia, that appellants in their reply affidavit filed on 14.10.2004 before the High Court has specifically stated in paragraph 5 that they were only engaged as Assistant Routine Clerks and peons on daily wages and further in para 20 of the affidavit, it was stated that they were discharging their duties on daily wage basis since 1995 and had entertained a legitimate expectation for regularisation of their services. Appellants own case is that they were only engaged on daily wages basis and never appointed in service either on a temporary basis or on ad hoc basis and considering the aforesaid fact, the Apex Court held that the appeal of the writ petitioner lacks merit. 15. On going through the aforesaid decision of Satyprakash (supra), this court is of the considered opinion that in that case, the respondents took a specific plea that the appellants therein were not engaged for full time and not only that they were not also engaged against any sanctioned post and in that case there was no policy like the policy of the Government in memorandum dated 22.2.2007. Therefore, the aforesaid case of Satyaprakash (supra) is distinguishable. 16. In the case of M.L. Kesari (supra), the Apex Court while considering the case of the respondents therein taking note of Umadevi (3) (supra) discussed which are irregular and illegal appointments and also discussed regarding the object behind the direction in para 53 of Umadevi (3) (supra) wherein it is stated that object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi (3) (supra) is twofold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi (3) (supra) was rendered, are considered for regularisation in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularise them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby relating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularise them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby relating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10.4.2006 (the date of decision in Umadevi (3) (supra) without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularisation. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi (3) (supra) or that, such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularisation in terms of the above directions in Umadevi (3) (supra) as a one time measure. The Apex Court in the said judgment while holding the decision of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court a] so gave a further direction to the Zila Panchayat to undertake an exercise within six months as a general one time regularisation exercise to fine out whether, there are any daily wage/casual/ad hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees including the respondents fulfil the, requirements mentioned in para 53 I umadevi (3) (supra) and if they fulfil, then their services have to be regularised. The said direction was given by the Apex Court considering the fact that the appeals preferred by the State of Karnataka having pending for more than four years after the decision in Umadevi (3) (supra and the appellant Zila Panchayat has not considered the case of the respondents for regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi (3) (supra) or thereafter. 17. In the case of M.L. Kesari (supra), their Lordships only provided a one-time regularisation exercise in view of para 53 of the case of Umadevi (3) (supra). 17. In the case of M.L. Kesari (supra), their Lordships only provided a one-time regularisation exercise in view of para 53 of the case of Umadevi (3) (supra). But in that case also the Apex Court directed for regularisation the services of those employees who had worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal meaning thereby person who was engaged even in casual/temporary or daily wage basis against the sanctioned post those engager lent/appointment can only be regularised as one time measure in view of exception contained in para 53 or Umadevi (3) (supra). But in the said case also there was no policy like the memorandum dated 22.2.2007 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). 18. It appears from the record as available that the petitioner was initially engaged as Sweeper/Group D on fixed pay basis and the respondent No. 3 also requested the respondent No. 2 for correcting the mistake committed by the office of the respondent No. 3 while submitting the list of DRWs and other categories to the Finance Department and specifically stated in letter dated 13 3.2006 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) that during submission of the list of DRWs and other categories to the Finance Department, the designation of the petitioner was shown as Contract (fixed pay) worker instead of DRW through oversight as well as typographical mistake which may be corrected. He also requested for taking steps to regularise the se] vice of the petitioner as he has already completed 17 years of continuous and satisfactory service as on 21.6.2004. 19. It is not clear to this court while the engaging authority proposed for regularisation of the petitioner as he continued as DRW for more than 17 years how the Finance Department treated the petitioner as part-time worker only taking note of certain wage slips. It also appears from the record that in various places, the petitioner was shown in different ways, somewhere as DRW, somewhere as Sweeper Group-D fixed pay basis, somewhere as part-time worker. A worker like the petitioner is not responsible for his different positions in different documents as those documents prepared by the authority concerned. It also appears from the record that in various places, the petitioner was shown in different ways, somewhere as DRW, somewhere as Sweeper Group-D fixed pay basis, somewhere as part-time worker. A worker like the petitioner is not responsible for his different positions in different documents as those documents prepared by the authority concerned. Neither from the pleadings of the petitioner nor the respondents it is clear whether the petitioner was engaged against a sanctioned post or not and also from the policy of the Government in its memorandum dated 22.2.2007 in which also nowhere it is mentioned whether for regularisation, it is necessary to engage a person against a sanctioned post or not. Therefore, for consideration of the case that the petitioner falls within the exception in para 53 of Umadevi (3) (supra) is very difficult. However, as there is no mention regarding engagement against sanctioned posts for regularisation of DRW/casual/contingent workers who have completed 15 years of service as on 31.3.2006, it can be apparently said that the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid memorandum dated 22.2.2007, part clearly in the circumstances when his name was sent by the office of the Superintending Engineer, respondent No. 3 to the Chief Engineer, respondent No. 2 for inclusion in the list of DRWs. Admittedly, the petitioner has completed 17 years of service as DRW on 31.3.2005 and also the services of some of his juniors were regularised by the authority and the petitioner was also shown as DRW Group D in the letter dated 19.12.2006 written by the respondent No. 4 to the Engineering Officer to the Chief Engineer, PWD. 20. In view of the above discussion, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of the service of the petitioner taking note of the letter dated 13.3.2006 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) written by the Superintending Engineer, respondent No. 3 to the Chief Engineer, respondent No. 2 as his case is apparently covered by the memorandum dated 22.2.2007 as stated above. It is needless to say that after consideration if the authority finds the petitioner suitable for regularisation then his age as per recruitment rules will be treated as relaxed for the purpose of regularisation and the educational qualification as per recruitment, rules will also be treated as relaxed for the purpose of regularisation in view of the policy decision of the Government in memorandum dated 22.2.2007 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). 21. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.