Hon'ble VYAS, J.—Heard learned counsel for petitioners. 2. In both the writ petitions, petitioners have prayed for direction to modify the order dated 14.3.2012 (Annex.10) to the extent of regularizing the services of the petitioners from the date of issuance of order and grant benefit w.e.f. 25.7.92, the day on which the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis against the posts. As per facts of the case, the petitioners were provided appointment initially vide order dated 25.7.92 against the sanctioned post of LDC in the payscale of Rs.950-1680 purely on temporary basis by District Collector, Dungarpur for three months. 3. According to the petitioner, their service period was extended from time to time and ultimately, the matter was examined for regularization of their services by the Government in the committee constituted fro regularization on 16.4.2010 in which after considering their case according to amendment made on 8.7.2009 petitioners were regularized on the post of LDC and consequently order was issued on 14.3.2012 whereby, services of petitioners were regularized in the payscale of Rs.5200-20200. Petitioners are not raising any voice for regularization. 4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner when initial appointment was made against the post by the District Collector, Dungarpur on 15.7.1992, therefore, obviously at the time of regularization, all the benefits for regularization is required to be given with effect from the date of initial entry into the service, therefore, it is prayed that respondents may kindly be directed to grant all the benefits from the date on which the petitioners were initially appointed on urgent temporary basis. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that admittedly in the Rules, appointment conducted by the RPSC but petitioners were provided appointment on temporary post by the District Collector, Dungapur in the year 1992 and that appointment was irregular appointment, therefore, it was felt necessary to regularize their services and for that pur-pose, a committee was constituted and the said committee constituted under notification dated 8.7.2009 considered the case of petitioners for regularization in its meeting held on 16.4.2010 and recommended their case for regulariza-tion on the post of LDC and thereafter, the order of regularization was issued by the District Collector, Dungarpur which is placed on record as Annex.10, therefore, it cannot be said that any illegality is committed by the respondents in passing the order dated 14.3.2010. Petitioners are not entitled for service benefits from entry into service in view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi reported in 2006(4) SCC page 1, therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the entire record of the case. Undisputedly, the petitioners were initially appointed on urgent temporary base against the sanctioned post by the District Collector, Dungarpur on 25.7.1992, initially for three months in the payscale of Rs.950-1680. The petitioners were allowed to continue on the post and finally their case was considered for regualrization by the committee in its meeting dated 16.4.2010 and the said committee recommended the case of petitioners for regularization solely on the ground that they are working since 1992 against the post. The petitioners were allowed to continue on the post and finally their case was considered for regualrization by the committee in its meeting dated 16.4.2010 and the said committee recommended the case of petitioners for regularization solely on the ground that they are working since 1992 against the post. It appears from the minutes of meeting placed on record as Annex.6 that an amendment was made in pursuance of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) which reads as under: ^^6- mijksä fcUnq la[;k 3 ds Øe la[;k 6 of.kr ftyk dysDVj dk;kZy;] Mwaxjiqj ds v/khu inLFkkfir@dk;Zjr 4 dfu"B fyfidx.k loZ Jh dj.k flag] lrh'kpUnz] yky'kadj vkSj nsohyky ds izdj.kksa ij fopkj foe'kZ ds ckn lfefr dh jk; gS fd bu fyfidksa dks vLFkk;h fu;qfä gkWVykbu ds fy;s Loh—r dfu"B fyfidksa ds inksa ij ftyk dysDVj }kjk jkstxkj dk;kZy; ls lwph izkIr djds rFkk fof/kor~ lk{kRdkj@Vad.k ijh{kk ysus ds ckn dfu"B fyfidksa ds fu;fer osrueku ij nh xbZ FkhA mä Loh—r inksa dsk dkfeZd foHkkx }kjk fnukad 01-07-2000 ls lekIr dj fn;s tkus ls bu pkj fyfidksa dks ftyk dysDVj ds vkns'k ls ftys esa miyC/k dfu"B fyfidksa ds fjä inksa ij lek;ksftr dj fy;k x;k vkSj orZeku esa ;g pkjksa fyfid ftyk dysDVj] MWwxjiqj ds v/khu dk;Zjr gSA bl izdkj dkfeZd foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk fnukad 8-7-2009 esa of.kZr lHkh 'krksZ ¼vFkkZr~ (i) irregular appointment on duly sanctioned post (ii) completion of 10 years service on 10.4.2006 without intervention of any court or tribunal (iii) continuously working as such on the date of commencement of these amendment rules (iv) eligibility for appointment as per rules on the date of their initial irregular appointment and (v) availability of vacancy at the time of screening) ds vuqlkj ;g izdj.k fu;ferhdj.k dh flQkfj'k fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA rn~uqlkj lfefr loZ lfefr ls bu pkjksa dfu"B fyfidksa dks dkfeZd foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk fnukad 8-7-2009 ds vuqlkj fu;fer fu;qfä iznku djus dh flQkfj'k djrh gSA** 7. Para 53 of the judgment rendered in the case of Uma Devi (supra) reads as under: "One aspect needs to be clarifid. Para 53 of the judgment rendered in the case of Uma Devi (supra) reads as under: "One aspect needs to be clarifid. There may be cases of irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. 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 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 a six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but no 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. 8. In view of above, it appears that initially petitioners were appointed in the pay-scale of Rs. 950-1680 and subsequently, their services were regularized as per amendment made in the rules and the judgment rendered in the case of Uma Devi (supra) after due considered by the committee vide order dated 14.3.2012, therefore, once the irregular appointment has been regularized, then it cannot be said that benefits should be extended from the date of irregular appointment in view of judgment of Uma Devi's case, therefore, whatever benefit is extended to the petitioners for regularization is in pursuance of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case is justified because there is no direction for granting all benefits from the date of initial appointment in Uma Devi's case. The only direction is to regularize the irregular appointment if any incumbent has completed more than ten years of service against the sanctioned post. 9. In view of above, there is no force in both the writ petitions, therefore, they are dismissed.