JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J.:- By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:-- (i) Issue a Rule calling upon the respondents and each one of them to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof shall not be issued directing/mandating them to regularize the services of your humble petitioners and absorb them to the post of ancillary labour in the pay scale of Rs. 3840-6720/- along with other allowances as admissible under the rules with effect from 27.07.2002 forthwith and in no time; (ii) Issue a Rule calling upon the respondents and each one of them to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof shall not be passed directing/mandating them to make payment of the salary and allowances after fixing the pay of your humble petitioners in the pay scale of Rs. 3840-6720/- with effect from 27.07.2002 and also clear the arrears thereof forthwith and in no time; Heard learned counsel, Mr. Somik Deb for the petitioners and learned counsel, Mr. Pradip Chakraborty for the respondent Corporation. 2. At the very outset of his submission, learned counsel Mr. Deb has submitted that petitioner No. 4 has died in the meantime and hence in respect of petitioner No. 4, the case has been abated. 3. The case of the petitioners, as pleaded, in brief is that, petitioner No. 1, 2 and 3 joined Food Corporation of India (for short, Corporation) as daily rated casual workers (unskilled labourers) in the year 1982,1981 and 1982 respectively and they rendered continuous service without any interruption. In spite of their continuous service, they were not regularized and salary and allowances at par with other persons who were similarly situated, were not paid to them. It is stated that some of the similarly situated unskilled labourers namely Bimal Dey, Md. Faizur Rahman, Smti. Panchambali Basfor, Sri Biju Deb and Sri Harendra Chakraborty filed separate writ petitions in the Shilong Bench of the Gauhati High Court vide Civil Rule Nos.10(SH)/1989, 11(SH)/1989, 41(SH)/1989, 42(SH)/1989 and 43(SH)/1989 and by a common judgment dated 13.09.1991 those writ petitions were disposed of directing the Corporation to regularize their services in the post which would be suitable to them within a time frame of 3(three) months from the date of passing the judgment. While disposing the writ petitions by the common judgment, the High Court further directed that even if there were any break in services of the petitioners, the said break in services should be ignored by the respondents. Pursuant to the said judgment those writ petitioners were given the benefits and they were appointed in suitable post under the Corporation. The petitioners further contended that some other similarly situated persons namely Sri Gautam Roy, Sri Adhir Chakraborty Md. Masik Miah, Sri Swapan Dey and Sri Tapan Choudhury also filed Civil Rule No. 99(SH) of 1992 before the Shilong Bench of the Hon'ble High Court and the High Court by judgment and order dated 25.09.1992 directed the respondent-Corporation to regularize the services of the petitioners. A Letters Patent Appeal was filed before the Division Bench challenging the judgment dated 25.09.1992 vide Writ Appeal No. 25(SH)/1999 and the Division Bench by judgment dated 20.11.2001 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and order passed by the Single Bench. Pursuant to that judgment, Gautam Roy and others were regularized in the service in the post of Ancillary Labourer in the pay scale of ` 3840-6720/-. Petitioners being similarly situated claimed the same benefit to the Corporation but no such benefit was conferred to them. The petitioners placed on record the Office Order dated 27.07.2002 (Annexure P/1 to the writ petition) under which the Corporation regularly appointed one Gautam Roy as Ancillary Labour in the pay scale of ` 3840-6720/- pursuant to the order passed by the High Court and also placed on record Office Order dated 28.07.2005(Annexure P/2 to the writ petition) under which Md. Masik Miah, Swapan Dey and Tapan Choudhury were similarly appointed in the same post as Ancillary Labourers and in the same pay scale as that of Gautam Roy, pursuant to the order passed by the High Court. It is contended by the petitioners that since they were discriminated and the similar benefits were not conferred to them, a demand notice was served on the respondent Corporation through an engaged learned counsel (Annexure P/3 to the writ petition) but the petitioners received no positive response. Hence, the writ petition is filed seeking the reliefs as stated hereinabove. 4. It is contended by the petitioners that since they were discriminated and the similar benefits were not conferred to them, a demand notice was served on the respondent Corporation through an engaged learned counsel (Annexure P/3 to the writ petition) but the petitioners received no positive response. Hence, the writ petition is filed seeking the reliefs as stated hereinabove. 4. Respondents contested the case by filing common counter affidavit, inter alia, stating that the petitioners were neither engaged in Corporation work by issuing any kind of letter of appointment nor were posted in any sanctioned post or in any vacancy as per Rules of the Corporation. There was also nothing to show that the petitioners had been engaged on regular basis for rendering continuous service in the Corporation work and therefore, there is no question of payment of salary and allowances in the time scale of pay to the petitioners. It is further contended by the respondents that the cases instituted by Bimal Dey and others and the judgments passed by the Gauhati High Court (Shilong Bench) long 27 years ago cannot be a precedent in the case of the petitioners and the writ petition is hopelessly barred by the law of limitation and therefore, not maintainable in law. It is further contended that in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the Uma Devi's Case reported in (2004) 6 SCC 1 , the High Court should not pass order of regularizing casual labour whose original appointments were made without following the procedure prescribed for appointment. Simply because they rendered continuous service for a long time cannot be a ground for regularizing their services, in view of the decisions in Uma Devi's Case. The judgments of Gauhati High Court (Shilong Bench), in the cases referred by the petitioners, cannot be treated as precedent and on that ground the petitioners' case cannot be considered. 5. Learned counsel, Mr. Deb appearing for the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 submitted that the petitioners joined the Corporation as a daily rated casual workers as unskilled labourers in the year 1981 and 1982 and the fact has not been disputed or specifically denied by the respondents. 5. Learned counsel, Mr. Deb appearing for the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 submitted that the petitioners joined the Corporation as a daily rated casual workers as unskilled labourers in the year 1981 and 1982 and the fact has not been disputed or specifically denied by the respondents. Since the petitioners were engaged as daily rated casual workers and they were unskilled labourers, so no letter of appointment was given to them but it is a fact that from the year 1981/82 they have been rendering continuous uninterrupted services to the Corporation. They are unskilled labourers. They found that similarly situated some other labourers were regularized in the post of Ancillary Labourers in the time scale of Rs. 3840-6720/- whereas their request to confer them similar relief were not acceded. The respondents admitted the fact that some other similarly situated casual labourers filed writ cases in the Shilong Bench of the then Gauhati High Court and the High Court passed specific order to give regular appointment to the writ petitioners and pursuant to the Court's order regular appointments were given to the petitioners of those writ cases. While this was not disputed by the respondent Corporation that similarly situated persons were given benefits, there is no reason for the respondents to refuse similar benefits to the present writ petitioners who are indisputably similarly situated. In the meantime, the petitioners rendered more than 30 years continuous and uninterrupted services. There is no dispute raised by the respondents that the petitioners are not in the services of the Corporation at present. Under such circumstances, discriminatory treatment to the petitioners is a clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Since the petitioners have been discriminated upon and since the petitioners were similarly situated to that of the persons who have been regularly appointed pursuant to Annexure P/1 and P/2, the petitioners are also entitled to similar benefit from the date 27.07.2002. It is candidly contended by Mr. Deb, learned counsel of the petitioners that Uma Devi's case is on a different context. The factual situation is completely different. There is no case of the respondents that the petitioners were irregularly engaged or that the petitioners never rendered services as a daily rated casual workers (unskilled labourers). While that fact is not disputed, the principles laid down in Uma Devi's Case cannot be applied in the case of the petitioners. The factual situation is completely different. There is no case of the respondents that the petitioners were irregularly engaged or that the petitioners never rendered services as a daily rated casual workers (unskilled labourers). While that fact is not disputed, the principles laid down in Uma Devi's Case cannot be applied in the case of the petitioners. He has relied on Para 53 of the Judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. V. Umadevi (3) & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 . He has also relied on the case of U.P. State Electricity Board V. Pooran Chandra Pandey and Ors. reported in (2007) 11 SCC 92 and the case of Halli Gowda and Ors. V. Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C. & Anr. reported in (1989) Supp. (1) SCC 267. 6. On the contrary, appearing for the respondents, learned counsel Mr. Chakraborty with his all usual fairness has submitted that the petitioners were neither engaged nor appointed by the Corporation. No scrap of paper to that effect has been submitted by the petitioners. Simply on the plea of their continuous service as a daily rated casual worker (unskilled labourer), they cannot claim as of right regular appointment in any post of the Corporation. The earlier judgment of the Gauhati High Court in the Shilong Bench may be an instance but cannot be a precedent for arriving at a conclusion that the petitioners have been discriminated upon. Since the petitioners were never engaged or appointed by the respondent Corporation, the Corporation has no obligation or responsibility to regularly appoint the petitioners in the time scale of pay. The principle of Uma Devi's case may fairly be applied in the case of the petitioners and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. A writ petition is decided on the basis of the pleadings and supporting evidence placed on record by the contesting parties. The petitioners contended that they joined the works of Corporation as a daily rated casual worker as unskilled labourers in the year 1981-82. This specific averment made by the petitioners has neither been disputed nor denied by the respondents specifically. The petitioners contended that they joined the works of Corporation as a daily rated casual worker as unskilled labourers in the year 1981-82. This specific averment made by the petitioners has neither been disputed nor denied by the respondents specifically. The respondents stated that the petitioners were neither being engaged in Corporation work by issuing any kind of letter of appointment in any sanctioned post or vacancy as per rules nor they were engaged on regular basis for rendering continuous service in the Corporation work. The petitioners nowhere claimed that they were engaged by issuing any kind of letter of appointment. They simply stated that they joined the works of Corporation as a daily rated casual worker as unskilled labourers and that has not been denied or disputed. The respondents nowhere made any specific statement that the petitioners never joined the Corporation as a daily rated casual workers (unskilled labourers) and that they did never render any continuous uninterrupted service and their plea that they have been working under the Corporation is false. Under such circumstances I have no hesitation to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioners had been rendering services as a daily rated casual workers (unskilled labourers) in the works of the Corporation from the year 1981-82 and the service so rendered were continuous and without any interruption. 8. The petitioners contended that some other similarly situated daily rated casual labourers filed writ cases before the Shilong Bench of the Gauhati High Court and pursuant to the judgment of the High Court, those writ petitioners were engaged in the post of Ancillary Labourer on regular basis in the time scale of pay of` 3840-6720/-. The fact of previous writ cases instituted against the Corporation has not been disputed. Annexure- P/1 and P/2 makes it abundantly clear that pursuant to the judgment passed by the Gauhati High Court (Shilong Bench) some persons were appointed on regular basis as Ancillary Labourer in time scale of pay. It is contended by the petitioners that those persons who were appointed pursuant to Court's order were similarly situated persons to that of the petitioners and that fact has not been disputed or denied by the respondent Corporation. It is contended by the petitioners that those persons who were appointed pursuant to Court's order were similarly situated persons to that of the petitioners and that fact has not been disputed or denied by the respondent Corporation. While some other similarly situated persons were conferred certain benefits of regular appointment, pursuant to Court's order, the petitioners, though claimed similar benefit has not been conferred the same and this definitely amounts to a discriminatory treatment meted to the petitioners. The respondents though tried to shirk their responsibility referring to Uma Devi's case but how the principles of Uma Devi's case can be applied in the present case has not been disclosed. The petitioners are not back door appointees. They made a clear statement that they joined the works of Corporation as a daily rated casual worker as unskilled labourers in the year 1981-82 and they have been rendering continuous service without any interruption till today. There is no case of any irregular appointment or back door appointment. Learned counsel, Mr. Deb rather put reliance on the principles laid down in Uma Devi's Case (supra) and referred paragraph 53 of the judgment which reads as follows:-- 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 paragraph 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 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 services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of 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. We also clarify that regularization, 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 regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. 9. In my considered opinion, the law laid down in Uma Devi's case (supra) cannot be applied in the given facts and circumstances of the present case since the petitioners raised a point of discrimination on the part of the respondent Corporation meted to the petitioners since the benefit conferred to similarly situated persons has not been conferred to the petitioners. 10. In the case of Pooran Chandra Pandey & Ors. (supra) the Supreme Court has held that a little difference in facts or even one additional fact may make a lot of difference in precedential value of a decision. The fact of the case of Pooran Chandra Pandey was that some daily wage employees of a Cooperative Electric Supply Society were praying for regularizing their service in the Electricity Board since the State Electricity Board taken over the daily wage employees of the society for working in the Electric Board "in the same manner and position". But the services rendered by them while working under the society were not considered for their regularization. But the services rendered by them while working under the society were not considered for their regularization. In the given fact of that case the Supreme Court referring to Uma Devi's Case has held that the ratio laid down in Uma Devi's case cannot be applied mechanically without seeing the fact of a particular case, as a little difference in facts can make Uma Devi's case inapplicable. 11. Learned counsel, Mr. Deb referred paragraph 18 and 19 of the judgment of Pooran Chandra Pandey (supra) which reads as follows:-- 18. We may further point out that a seven-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 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 Gandhi's case (supra) is a decision of a seven-Judge Bench, whereas Uma Devi's case (supra) 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 Gandhi's case does not specifically deal with the question of regularization 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 regularization 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. 12. In the case of Halli Gowda (supra), 32 writ petitioners working as daily wage conductors approached the Court alleging that some other similarly situated daily wage conductors were given regular service and the writ petition was allowed with certain directions to the respondent Corporation of that writ case. Learned counsel, Mr. Deb referred paragraph 7 of the judgment which reads as follows:-- 7. Learned counsel, Mr. Deb referred paragraph 7 of the judgment which reads as follows:-- 7. It is not disputed before us by counsel for the respondents that in case benefit of regularisation has been conferred on daily rated employees from the date of initial employment and such benefit has not been extended to the petitioners, the grievance grounded upon Article 14 of the Constitution would be valid. The matter to be examined, therefore, is with reference to factual position as to when the 19 persons in Annexure 'A' were initially employed and when they have been regularised as against the initial employment of each of the petitioners. This can be done only by reference to appropriate records. We direct that a senior officer of the Corporation shall be named by respondent No. 1 to look into these allegations and at the time the question is examined by such officer the petitioners shall be given appropriate opportunity of being heard, if asked for through counsel also, and all relevant documents should be looked into to ascertain whether the claim of the petitioners that they have been discriminated against in the facts indicated in their writ petition particularly with reference to Annexure 'A' is correct; and in case it is found that the petitioners have not been given the benefit which has been given to the 19 daily rated Conductors specified in Annexure 'A', petitioners may be conferred the same benefit as has been extended to those 19 persons unless the respondent is able to assign satisfactory and cogent reasons and states as to why petitioners are not entitled to the same benefit. This would be so on the footing that regularisation does not require a specified period of service to have been put in. The respondent-Corporation shall designate the authority within two weeks and the enquiry by him in the manner directed above shall be completed within three months. On the basis of the report furnished by such authority the respondent is directed to take a final decision within two months thereafter. 13. The respondent-Corporation shall designate the authority within two weeks and the enquiry by him in the manner directed above shall be completed within three months. On the basis of the report furnished by such authority the respondent is directed to take a final decision within two months thereafter. 13. Having considered the facts brought before this Court in the writ case and taking into account the decision of the Apex Court in Uma Devi's Case, I am of considered opinion that the law laid down by the Apex Court in Uma Devi's case cannot be applied in the facts of the present case since in the present case a question of discrimination has been raised by the petitioners, has not been disputed/discarded by the respondents. Since the petitioners were similarly situated to that of the persons appointed pursuant to order of the High Court in earlier writ cases by dint of Annexure P/1 and P/2, there is no reason for the respondents in not conferring similar benefits to the petitioners. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the petitioners being similarly situated to that of the persons employed under Annexure P/1 and P/2, are entitled to be appointed in the post of Ancillary Labourers in the admissible time scale of pay with immediate effect. The claim of the petitioners for their regular appointment w.e.f. 27.07.2002 is not supported with any logic. Respondents are directed to consider regular appointment of the petitioners in the post of Ancillary Labourer in the admissible time scale of pay with immediate effect. 15. With this direction the writ petition stands disposed of Parties are to bear their own costs.