Judgment Tapen Sen, J. 1. THE 20 (twenty) Writ Petitioners have prayed for an Order commanding upon the Respondent authorities to implement the Scheme for regularization of their appointment. They have also prayed that on the basis of such implementation of the Scheme, they be regularized in any other Department on the post of Helpers, considering the fact that they are working as casual employees on the said post for the last few decades and there is no vacancy in the Department in which they are presently working. THE Petitioners have further prayed, as an alternative, that the authorities be directed to implement the Scheme for payment of compensation in the event regularization cannot be made. 2. THE Writ Petition was filed on 25.7.2006 against (i) Chairman-cumManaging Director of M/s. Indian Airlines Ltd.; (ii) Senior Manager (Personal Service); and (iii) General Manager (GS), Indian Airlines Ltd., Eastern Region. Subsequently however, an Application, being CAN 158 of 2008 was filed for amendment of the Cause Title by incorporating the names of the Respondents as indicated in Para-4 of that Application and by Order dated 27.2.2008, the Respondents who were initially impleaded as parties, stood substituted by the following Respondents:- Respondent No. 1 : National Aviation Company of India Limited, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, having its office at 113, Gurudwara Rakabgunge Road, New Delhi- 110001. Respondent No. 2 : THE Chief Manager (Personal Service), National Aviation Company of India Limited, Eastern Region, NTA, Dum Dum, Kolkata- 700052. Respondent No. 3 : THE General Manager (G.S.), National Aviation Company of India Limited, Eastern Region, NTA, Dum Dum, Kolkata- 700052. These Petitioners have stated that they have been working as Helpers in the Engineering Department, Stores and Purchase Department and Surface Transport Division of the Ground Support Department of the erstwhile Indian Airlines, Eastern Region. The Petitioners had stated in the aforementioned CAN No. 158 of 2008 that on 1.3.2007, the Govt. of India approved the merger of Air India and Indian Airlines and after the said merger, a new Company came into existence on and from 1.4.2007 named as "National Aviation Company of India Ltd." (Respondent No. 1). 3. The Petitioners had stated in the aforementioned CAN No. 158 of 2008 that on 1.3.2007, the Govt. of India approved the merger of Air India and Indian Airlines and after the said merger, a new Company came into existence on and from 1.4.2007 named as "National Aviation Company of India Ltd." (Respondent No. 1). 3. THE case of the Petitioners is that pursuant to an Employment Notice No. CPSD/32A/2123 issued by the Respondents for appointment on the post of Helpers in the Engineering Department, Stores and Purchase Department and Surface Transport Division of the Ground Support Department, some of the Petitioners applied directly while some were sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Interview letters were issued. THE Petitioners were duly interviewed by the Selection Committee constituted by the Respondents and thereafter, having become successful, they were duly selected following Recruitment Rules. A panel was then published on 31.7.1989 which was valid till 30.7.1991. Thereafter, it was extended till 15.7.1994. THE names of the Petitioners were duly empanelled along with other selected candidates. THE Petitioners, being selected, had to undergo pre- appointment formalities such as medical test, police verification etc. 4. THE grievance of the Petitioners is that although they were duly selected, no regular appointment was given to them and instead, they were engaged as casual workers for performing jobs of permanent staff. THE Petitioners have stated that some of them are still working as casual labourers and several representations have been filed for regularizing their services but the authorities have done nothing in the matter. On 19.3.1994, the Deputy Director (Personal) issued a Memorandum with regard to filling up of all vacancies giving priority to casual employees. Vayudoot employees, who were in the 4th position in the priority list, were appointed in the Indian Airlines by following the said Circular dated 19.3.1994 as contained in Annexure-P/1. However, the Petitioners were not favoured with regular appointment. 5. BEING aggrieved, the Petitioners filed a Writ Petition before this Court which was registered as C.O. No. 5587 (W) of 1995. On 29.3.1995, the same was disposed of by directing the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioners for appointment if there were vacancies which had come into existence by 30.7.1991 and provided they were filled up in spite of expiry of the Panel within one year from that date. On 29.3.1995, the same was disposed of by directing the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioners for appointment if there were vacancies which had come into existence by 30.7.1991 and provided they were filled up in spite of expiry of the Panel within one year from that date. Challenging the said Order, the Respondents filed an Appeal being FMA No. 7 of 1997 which was allowed by Order dated 18.8.1998. The Order dated 29.3.1995 was modified to the extent that against all existing and future vacancies, candidates who had been empanelled following Recruitment Rules were to be first regularized on the posts in question. The Order dated 18.8.1998 passed in the said Appeal is Annexure-P/3. An SLP was then taken out by the parties on 18.9.1998. The Petitioners also filed a SLP on 28.2.1999. Leave in both the matters was granted and the Appeals were heard together and were disposed of on 14.5.1999 by the Honble Supreme Court holding that the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court was not sustainable inasmuch as the Scheme could not have been overlooked. The Honble Supreme Court also held that the Petitioners who had been selected earlier should be given preference in the matter of consideration under the Scheme. This Order is Annexure-P/4 and it reads as follows:- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 3165 OF 1999 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C)No. 16735/98) Indian Airlines Ltd. appellant Versus Samaresh Bhowmick and Ors. respondents (With C.A. No. 3166 of 1999 @ S.L.P. (C ) No. 6883/99 ORDER Leave granted. The appellant, a statutory corporation, after advertisement and selection, prepared a list of selected persons for appointment to the post of Helpers. The select list was valid upto 15th July, 1994. The names of 74 writ petitioners, respondents herein, were included in the select list but they could not be appointed during the period of validity of the select list. Respondents approached the High Court of Calcutta by filing a writ petition and the learned Single Judge inter alia held that the respondents herein had no indefeasible right of being appointed and they had only the right of being considered for appointment in the vacancies for which selection was made contingent upon the appellant filling up those vacancies. Respondents approached the High Court of Calcutta by filing a writ petition and the learned Single Judge inter alia held that the respondents herein had no indefeasible right of being appointed and they had only the right of being considered for appointment in the vacancies for which selection was made contingent upon the appellant filling up those vacancies. However, the learned Single Judge directed that the cases of the respondents should be considered for appointment if any vacancies arose till 30.7.91. An appeal was laid before the Division Bench and by the impugned judgment and order dated 12.8.98, the Division Bench inter alia directed that in the present vacancies as well as future vacancies, the candidates who were selected and empanelled shall be regularised first. It may be stated that the appellant proposed a scheme for regularisation of casual employees working in Calcutta and the present respondents were also given casual employment by the appellant. The said scheme for regularisation of all casual employees is extracted below:- "1. All the casuals irrespective of the fact that names were borne on any panel or not will be treated at par provided they have worked for 90 days as casual during the last three years. 2. Notification will be issued inviting applications from casual employees for the post of Helpers in Commercial, Engineering, Stores, Ground Support, Catering Canteens and Peons. 3. Age relaxation to the extent of casual employment will be given subject to a maximum age requirement of 40 years for general category, 43 years for OBC and 45 years for SC and ST as on date of the order of the Court. 4. The candidates must fulfill the educational qualification of having passed 8th Class from a recognised institutions for the post of Helpers in Commercial, Engineering, Stores, Ground Support and Peon. 5. Selections will be made by duly constituted Selection Board as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the Company. 6. Merit lists, category/cadre wise will be prepared and the selected candidates would be offered employment against the vacancies in order of merit. 7. While making appointments, the directives of the Government with regard to reservations will be adhered to. 8. Those who cannot be appointed due to non-availability of regular vacancies would be given ex-gratia payment calculated on the basis of compensation payable under Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 7. While making appointments, the directives of the Government with regard to reservations will be adhered to. 8. Those who cannot be appointed due to non-availability of regular vacancies would be given ex-gratia payment calculated on the basis of compensation payable under Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, they will have no claim for reemployment as casual or otherwise in future. 9. The appointment of the above mentioned empanelled casual employees, will be subject to their completing all the pre-employment formalities and on being declared medically fit by Medical Officer of the Company. 10. This will be a one time exercise only." The contention on behalf of the appellant is that as the life of the select list has expired long back, the direction of the Division Bench is not relevant now. It has also been urged that merely because the candidates were empanelled, it would not give any right to them for appointment and at best they may have the right for consideration for appointment. It has been further contended on behalf of the appellant that as the Scheme has been prepared for absorption of casual employees which would also include the present respondents, the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is not at all sustainable in view of the above scheme. While trying to support the judgment of the Division Bench, the learned counsel for the respondents urged that the cases of the respondents need sympathetic consideration in as much as they were properly selected. We are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is not sustainable inasmuch as High Court could not have over looked the scheme. However, we are of the opinion that respondents having been selected in the test earlier should be given preference in the matter of their consideration under the Scheme. In the result the appeals are allowed to the extent that the respondents shall be given preference for regularisation of their service consistently with the scheme extracted above. Parties shall bear their own costs. (G.T. Nanavati, J.) (S.N. Phukan, J.)" New Delhi May 14, 1999 (Quoted but emphasis by bold fonts is by this Court) 6. In the result the appeals are allowed to the extent that the respondents shall be given preference for regularisation of their service consistently with the scheme extracted above. Parties shall bear their own costs. (G.T. Nanavati, J.) (S.N. Phukan, J.)" New Delhi May 14, 1999 (Quoted but emphasis by bold fonts is by this Court) 6. IT is the further grievance of the Petitioners that the Respondents did not take any steps for complying with the Order of the Supreme Court and therefore, they moved an Application for Contempt on 18.3.2002 but it was disposed of as withdrawn by Order dated 3.5.2002 on the prayer made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners to the effect that they desired to withdraw those contempt petitions for moving the appropriate Court. Permission was granted. The Order dated 3.5.2002 is Annexure-P/5 of the Writ Petition. The Petitioners then demanded justice by legal Notice dated 6.5.2002 in which they asked the authorities to issue a Notification inviting Applications from casual employees for the posts in question in terms of para-2 of the Scheme which was produced by the Respondent authorities before the Honble Supreme Court. However, by their letter dated 25.6.2002, the legal Notice was replied to by the learned Counsel for the Respondents, Mr. R.N. Majumdar, wherein, while referring to the Honble Supreme Court as having sanctified the said Scheme, the prayer of the Petitioners to give effect to the said Scheme was however refused stating that after the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court, the Respondent authorities had reviewed their manpower and it had come to the conclusion that for their financial revival, it would be necessary to "contain" its manpower and therefore, a decision had been taken not to fill up any vacancy at present. The Representation of the Petitioners dated 6.5.2002 is Annexure-P/6 and reply thereto is at page-65 of the Writ Petition. 7. THE aforementioned refusal on the part of the Respondents gave rise to a fresh set of litigation. A Writ Petition was filed being W.P. No. 8946 (W) of 2003 and by an Order dated 20.6.2003, Honble Mr. Justice A.K. Mitra, as his Lordship then was, disposed it of by directing the authorities to strictly follow of the Order of the Apex Court. A Writ Petition was filed being W.P. No. 8946 (W) of 2003 and by an Order dated 20.6.2003, Honble Mr. Justice A.K. Mitra, as his Lordship then was, disposed it of by directing the authorities to strictly follow of the Order of the Apex Court. His lordship also restrained the authorities from appointing any outsider except those who had lodged a complaint or who were similar as per observation of the Honble Supreme Court and as per the Scheme which was produced by the Respondents before the Apex Court. His Lordship also directed that the Petitioners will be allowed to continue to perform their duties in the manner in which they were performing 8. THE Petitioners have stated that with the expansion and/or growth of Indian Airlines Ltd., their legitimate expectations increased but in spite of making repeated requests including Representations dated 16.11.2004 and 20.5.2005 (Annexure-P/8 collectively) the Respondents did not give any reply. THE Petitioners have stated that there are substantial number of vacancies as well as requirement of regular employment but the authorities are not paying any heed to the representations of the Petitioners. The Petitioners have relied upon a Report dated 5.7.2005 of the officiating Deputy General Manager of M/s. Indian Airlines Corporation who had proposed that immediate steps be initiated to induct suitable personnel at the staff level (Grade 3 -6) in the PPC Division of Indian Airlines Ltd. Calcutta which was facing a shortage of suitable manpower for existing workload. He further reported that there was a shortage of 50% at the officer level as well as at the staff level. The said Report was submitted to the General Manager (E), IAL, ER, Calcutta, vide Annexure-P/9. 9. ACCORDING to the Petitioners, the Respondents have not paid any heed to the Order of the Supreme Court, to the Order of Justice A.K. Mitra, as his Lordship then was and have also not given any weightage to the Report of the Deputy General Manager referred to above. 10. ON 3.7.2006 (Annexure-P/10), the Petitioners again demanded justice but it was not answered. In para-16, the Petitioners have stated that they were empanelled as Helpers in the Engineering Department, Stores and Purchase Department and Surface Transport Division of Ground Support Department and that there are various other Departments under the authorities where there are a substantial number of vacancies. 10. ON 3.7.2006 (Annexure-P/10), the Petitioners again demanded justice but it was not answered. In para-16, the Petitioners have stated that they were empanelled as Helpers in the Engineering Department, Stores and Purchase Department and Surface Transport Division of Ground Support Department and that there are various other Departments under the authorities where there are a substantial number of vacancies. It is on the basis of the aforementioned set of facts that the Petitioners have filed this Writ Petition. An Affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the Respondents which has been duly sworn by the Manager (Personal) of the National Aviation Company of India Ltd. They have stated that it is absolutely the Managements prerogative to determine its work strength. They have stated that the Company cannot be asked to employ persons in the name of regularization of service when posts are not in existence. They have also stated that the Petitioners were empanelled as they could not be appointed during the validity period of the panel as their turn did not come during the validity period of the said panel and therefore, they have no right to claim appointment on the basis of a panel whose life had expired long time ago on 15.7.1994. They have also stated that when the panel was in existence, Indian Airlines was a statutory corporation constituted under the Air Corporations Act, 1953 which stood repealed w.e.f. 29.1.1994 by the Air Corporations (Transfer of undertakings and Repeal) Act, 1994. 11. THUS, the Respondents have stated that the Writ Petition involves going into disputed questions of facts and therefore, it is not maintainable. Their further contention is that the Writ Petition is not maintainable as the Petitioners have claimed absorption in the service of the erstwhile Indian Airlines Ltd. but the said Company has not been impleaded and the Officers who were impleaded, cannot be termed to be "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 12. TO cut short his submissions, Mr. R.N. Majumdar, learned Counsel for the Respondents has referred to para-27 of the Writ Petition and has submitted that the claim of the Petitioners is based on the Scheme framed by the Company and approved by the Supreme Courts Order dated 14.5.1999. 12. TO cut short his submissions, Mr. R.N. Majumdar, learned Counsel for the Respondents has referred to para-27 of the Writ Petition and has submitted that the claim of the Petitioners is based on the Scheme framed by the Company and approved by the Supreme Courts Order dated 14.5.1999. The said Scheme has lost its sanctity and cannot be acted upon in view of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 ( Secretary, State of Karnataka and ors. Vs. Uma Devi and ors. ) . He further states that there is a severe financial crunch and any further financial liabilities would be expressly damaging to the Corporation. He has cited various paragraphs of the Affidavit-in-opposition in support of such contentions. The Respondents have also submitted that the Petitioners do not have a legal right merely because they were empanelled. In the opinion of this Court, it is clear that the engagement/empanelment of the Petitioners, at the initial stage, was not illegal because they were all selected and empanelled after following a regular recruitment process. On the contrary, the then Indian Airlines Ltd. which was the Appellant before the Honble Supreme Court, had proposed a Scheme for regularization of casual employees working in Calcutta. The Honble Supreme Court noticed the said submissions and extracted the Scheme itself in the body of the Order. While allowing the Appeal, their Lordships very clearly stated that the Petitioners (who were Respondents therein) having been selected, should be given preference in the matter of their consideration under the Scheme and those Respondents shall be given preference for regularization consistently with the Scheme extracted in the Order of the Apex Court. The Order of the Honble Supreme Court was arbitrarily attempted to be ignored when, on 25.6.2002 (i.e. after the Order of the Apex Court), the Respondents responded through their lawyer and stated as follows:- "The Honble Supreme Court by the judgment and order dated 14th May, 1999 in the Civil Appeal Nos. 3165 of 1999 and 3166 of 1999 (Indian Airlines Limited-Vs- Samaresh Bhowmik and Ors.) sanctified the said scheme. Thereafter, my client reviewed its man power to cope with its functioning and came to a conclusion that for financial revival of my client, it would be necessary to contain its man power. 3165 of 1999 and 3166 of 1999 (Indian Airlines Limited-Vs- Samaresh Bhowmik and Ors.) sanctified the said scheme. Thereafter, my client reviewed its man power to cope with its functioning and came to a conclusion that for financial revival of my client, it would be necessary to contain its man power. Accordingly it has been decided by my client not to fill up any vacancy, if exists, at present. Under the circumstances, it is not possible on the part of my client at the present juncture to offer any employment to any of the casuals who fulfills the requisite criteria for the said scheme for regularisation and as such the question of issuance of any notification for regularisation does not and cannot arise. Yours faithfully, (R.N. Majumdar) Advocate" (Quoted) 13. THE matter did not end there. On a fresh bout of litigation, Honble Mr. Justice A.K. Mitra, as his Lordship then was, clearly stated in June 2003 in W.P. 8948 (W) of 2003 that the Respondent authorities, while considering the matter will strictly follow the Order passed by the Apex Court. These two Orders were passed on 14.5.1999 and 20.6.2003 respectively and thereafter, on 5.7.2005, the Deputy General Manager, by Annexure-P/9, stated that there was a shortage of 50% of staff. THE Indian Airlines did nothing in the matter and no consideration was given to the case of the Petitioners. Instead, they allowed themselves to be merged into a new Company on 1.4.2007 which came to be known as the "National Aviation Company of India Ltd." Thus, after such a long period of time, the Respondents cannot be allowed to take the plea that the Scheme has lost its sanctity because of the judgment passed in Uma Devis case (supra). 14. IN this context, it would be relevant to point out that in a recent judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247 (State of Karnataka and ors. Vs. M.L. Kesari and Ors.), it has been held in para-11 that "The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi (3) 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) was rendered, are considered for regularisation in view of their long service. 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) 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 defeating 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)] 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) 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) as a one-time measure." From the above, it would appear that the Apex Court, in para 11, specifically observed that "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)] 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) 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) as a one-time measure." [emphasis by this Court] IN para 10, their Lordships have further explained that the "onetime exercise" will be concluded only when all employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of Uma Devis case are considered. "8. "8. Umadevi (3) casts a duty upon the Government or instrumentality concerned, to take steps to regularise 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 onetime measure. Umadevi (3) 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). 9. The term "one-time measure" has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi (3), 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 qualification for the post and if so, regularise their services. 10. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi (3), cases of several daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees were still pending before courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularisation process. On the other hand, some government departments or instrumentalities undertook the onetime exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. IN such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in Umadevi (3), will not lose their right to be considered for regularisation, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six-month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi (3) has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10-4-2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3), but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi (3), the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3), but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi (3), the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one-time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3), are so considered. 11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi (3) 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) 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 defeating 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)] 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) 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) as a one-time measure." (Quoted but emphasis by bold fonts is by this Court) In the instant case, the Petitioners were conferred with rights for consideration at least up to 20.6.2003 when the judgment was delivered by Honble Mr. Justice A.K. Mitra, as his Lordship then was. Uma Devis case reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , was delivered subsequently on 10.4.2006. 15. MOREOVER, in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Justice A.K. Mitra, as his Lordship then was. Uma Devis case reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , was delivered subsequently on 10.4.2006. 15. MOREOVER, in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey and ors., reported in (2007) 11 SCC 92 it has been held that Uma Devis case cannot be applied where regularization is sought for in pursuance of enforcement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, the Petitioners initial engagement/entry into service was not illegal and therefore their rights at least for consideration stood accrued till 2003 for reasons stated above. 16. THE fact that the Respondent authorities did not even bother to give effect to the earlier judgment of the Honble Apex Court and the judgment passed by Honble Mr. Justice A.K. Mitra, as his Lordship then was, goes to show arbitrariness on the part of the Respondents. This Court has already said so in Para-18 above. Let it once again be repeated here that the Petitioners were all engaged on the basis of a proper selection procedure and therefore their initial entry was not at all illegal nor a casual entry. It is thus evident that the claim of the Petitioners are being pursued on the basis of Article 14 of the Constitution of India which ensures that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. This clause has been interpreted by a large number of judgments on the concept that all executive action must be reasonable. By mechanically stating in their Affidavit-in-opposition that the Panel has lost its sanctity because of the judgment passed in Uma Devi's case, is a statement which is not only arbitrary but it has been made without considering the facts of the case. Paragraphs 16, 18 and 19 of the Pooran Chandra Pandeys case (supra) are therefore worth recording. They read as follows:- "16. We are constrained to refer to the above decisions and principles contained therein because we find that often Umadevi (3) case is being applied by courts mechanically as if it were a Euclids formula without seeing the facts of a particular case. As observed by this Court in Bhavnagar University and Bharat Petroleum Corpn. They read as follows:- "16. We are constrained to refer to the above decisions and principles contained therein because we find that often Umadevi (3) case is being applied by courts mechanically as if it were a Euclids formula without seeing the facts of a particular case. As observed by this Court in Bhavnagar University and Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. a little difference in facts or even one additional fact may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. Hence, in our opinion, Umadevi (3) case cannot be applied mechanically without seeing the facts of a particular case, as a little difference in facts can make Umadevi (3) case inapplicable to the facts of that case. 18. We may further point out that a seven-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India has held that reasonableness and non-arbitrariness is part of Article 14 of the Constitution. It follows that the Government must act in a reasonable and non-arbitrary manner otherwise Article 14 of the Constitution would be violated. Maneka Gandhis case is a decision of a five-Judge Bench of this Court. It is well settled that a smaller Bench decision cannot override a larger Bench decision of the court. No doubt, Maneka Gandhis case does not specifically deal with the question of regularisation of government employees, but the principle of reasonableness in executive action and the law which it has laid down, in our opinion, is of general application. 19. In the present case many of the writ petitioners have been working from 1985 i.e. they have put in about 22 years service and it will surely not be reasonable if their claim for regularisation is denied even after such a long period of service. 19. In the present case many of the writ petitioners have been working from 1985 i.e. they have put in about 22 years service and it will surely not be reasonable if their claim for regularisation is denied even after such a long period of service. Hence apart from discrimination, Article 14 of the Constitution will also be violated on the ground of arbitrariness and unreasonableness if employees who have put in such a long service are denied the benefit of regularisation and are made to face the same selection which fresh recruits have to face." (Quoted) Moreover, para-51 of the Uma Devis judgment (supra), has frowned only upon those "who have got in casually or those who have come through the backdoor" but in the instant case, the Petitioners were duly interviewed by the Selection Committee on the basis of interview letters and their participation was on the basis of employment Notice No. CPSD/32A/2123 as stated in para 4 (supra). They cannot therefore be said to have "got in casually" or "through the backdoor" albeit having been engaged and empanelled as casual employees. Consequently, by adverting to Uma Devis case, the Respondents cannot frustrate the rights of the Petitioner for a "one time consideration" of their case. 17. UNDER the circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed and a Writ of Mandamus is issued upon the Respondents to give effect to the Scheme about which they had referred to before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and on the basis whereof, the said Honble Apex Court had allowed the Appeal. The Scheme must be implemented and in view of the judgment passed in Kesaris case (supra), the act of regularisation of service as a one time measure, must be now undertaken so that it is completed within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. The Writ Petition stands allowed. However, there shall be no Order as to costs. Upon appropriate Application(s) being made, urgent Photostat Certified copy of this Judgment, be given/issued expeditiously subject to usual terms and conditions.