JUDGEMENT 1. Petitioners have filed this writ application challenging an order of the Executive Engineer, P.H.E.D., Ara dated 18.7.2007, as contained in Annexure-5, by which their services have been reverted as daily wage Plumbing Khalasi from the post of regular Plumbing Khalasi. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were initially appointed as Khalasi on daily wages in the year 1982 and thereafter they were taken into regular scale of pay with all benefits. However, later on, their services were reverted to daily wages which they challenged before this Court in CWJC No. 7359 of 2002*. The said writ application, alongwith large number of other writ applications, was taken up by a Division Bench of this Court and disposed of by a judgment, a copy whereof is Annexure-3. By this judgment, this Court directed the respondents to constitute a high powered committee of three Secretaries for scrutiny of service conditions of all the petitioners in the light of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka V/s. Uma Devi(3) [2006(2) PLJR (SC)363]. It is submitted that thereafter petitioners cases were considered by the Committee and it recommended for absorption of the petitioners in regular establishment, vide Annexure-4. However, subsequently, in the light of some directions of this Court passed in a contempt application, the list was revised and the petitioners were reverted to the post of daily wage Plumbing Khalasi by the impugned order. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed in the case. It is stated that on account of orders of this Court list had to be revised and it was found that since the vacancies were not available and their seniors have already been adjusted against the available vacancies, petitioners were reverted to the status of daily wagers. 4. The Division Bench had directed the respondents to scrutinize the cases of the incumbents and take a decision in the light of the said judgment of the Constitution Bench. It is well known that in the case of Uma Devi (supra) the Constitution Bench has deprecated continuance of employees on daily wages and on ad hoc basis for long periods. The Division Bench had directed the respondents to scrutinize the cases of the incumbents and take a decision in the light of the said judgment of the Constitution Bench. It is well known that in the case of Uma Devi (supra) the Constitution Bench has deprecated continuance of employees on daily wages and on ad hoc basis for long periods. It has held that, if appointments are not made in accordance with the Rules applying the principles of Articles 14 and 16, any length of service rendered by an employee is not to create any right in him to continue in service. It has also given liberty to the concerned employers to consider the cases of such daily wages/ad hoc employees for regularization who were continuing in service for more than 10 years, as one time measure, if their appointments were found only irregular and not illegal. That consideration had to be made by the concerned employers, if the employees were continuing in service in any capacity as on the date of the Constitution Bench judgment. 5. When the Division Bench remitted the matter back to the 3 Men Committee, it intended that final decision in respect of the petitioners in terms of the said observations of the Constitution Bench must be taken. But, it appears that the respondents have not appreciated the letter and spirit of the Division Bench judgment and are still continuing ad hoc arrangements by continuing employees on daily wages/ad hoc basis/temporary basis. The Constitution Bench clearly mandated that final decision must be taken in this regard and, if the appointments of employees were found only irregular and they were found to be continued for more than 10 years, they must be regularized and taken into regular establishment. The action of the respondents, by reverting back the petitioners to the status of daily wagers, is therefore against the mandate of the said Constitution Bench judgment and in the teeth of letter and spirit of direction of the Division Bench judgment. 6. In the circumstances, this Court directs the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for their regularization strictly within the parameters laid down by the Constitution Bench in paragraph 44 of its said judgment of the Apex Court and issue appropriate orders preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. 7. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is being noticed that the vacancies are available and juniors to the petitioners have already been absorbed by the respondents, leaving out the petitioners. 8. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.