JUDGMENT 1. Heard Shri S. Rupachandra, learned ASG appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Th. Sobhana, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner Union is seeking various relieves including absorption of its members in terms of the scheme framed by the State Government pursuant to the earlier court’s order dated 29-09-1997. 3.1. According to the petitioner Union, it is a Union formed by the Muster Roll/Casual employees of the Forest Department, Govt. of Manipur and its members as per the list prepared by the respondents, had entered into service during the period from 1982 to 1992. The petitioner Union under its old name known as All Manipur Forest Department Employees Association filed a writ petition being C.R. No. 523 of 1995 praying for absorption of its members which was disposed of on 29-09-1997 by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench directing the respondents therein to frame a scheme for absorption of the members of the petitioner Union and other similarly situated. A similar writ petition being C.R. No. 161 of 1996 was also filed seeking for similar relief which was disposed of on 10-03-1998 in terms of the earlier court’s order dated 29-09-1997. 3.2. Pursuant to the said court’s orders and in compliance thereof, the State Government framed a scheme for regularisation of the Casual/Muster Roll employees including the members of the petitioner Union. The relevant provisions of the said scheme are as under – “15. Terms and conditions for regularisation:- 1. The existing number of Casual and M.R. employees shall be verified once again as to whether they are actually working in the Department. The persons who shall be first benefited shall be as per seniority on rational basis and eligibility. Each case shall be scrutinised by a Committee in respect of the eligibility, continuance in service and a special D.P.C. shall formalise the appointment. 2. The Department shall take up the case of these persons who have completed 10 (ten) years as on 01-01-1997 first according to the availability of the posts in each category. 3. The Department also do not propose the regularisation of those labourers who are related with the seasonal works, such labourers are :- (i) Plantation Watchers and Fire Watchers; (ii) Nursery Malis engaged for seasonal nurseries for field planting. 4. 3. The Department also do not propose the regularisation of those labourers who are related with the seasonal works, such labourers are :- (i) Plantation Watchers and Fire Watchers; (ii) Nursery Malis engaged for seasonal nurseries for field planting. 4. There shall be a freezing of the number of the Casual employees till all the present number of Casual employees are given regular appointment.” 3.3. In terms of the said scheme, a DPC was convened on 08-07-1999 and 09-07-1999 for regularisation of Casual/Muster Roll workers and on the recommendation thereof, some incumbents holding the posts of Mali, Peon, Driver, Forest Guard etc. who completed 10 (ten) years of service, were regularised and thereafter no DPC was convened to consider the remaining members of the petitioner Union. Accordingly, some members of the Union who have been working as Forest Guards filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 1534 of 1999 which was disposed of on 20-09-2005 directing the respondents therein to consider the cases of the petitioners therein for regularisation/absorption. 3.4. Since no steps were taken by the respondents to regularise the services of the remaining members of the petitioner Union, a Contempt Petition was filed and instead of taking action for regularisation/absorption, the respondents proposed to convert the status of the Casual/Muster Roll of the Forest Department into contractual engagement and in view thereof, a Contempt Case being C.C. (C) No. 73 of 2013 was withdrawn on 17-07-2013 with the understanding that the services of the members of the petitioner Union could be converted into contractual employment first followed by regularisation/absorption. In order to make the process being smooth, the members of the petitioner Union were asked to give NOCs which have duly been given by the members of the petitioner Union and on the basis of the said NOCs submitted by the members of the petitioner Union, the proposal for conversion into contractual employment was placed before the Cabinet for consideration. But it appears that no decision had been taken by the Cabinet. Before the said proposal could be finalised, the respondent No. 2 vide its letter dated 04-12-2014 submitted a proposal for filling up of 257 (two hundred and fifty seven) posts in the Department of Forest by direct recruitment. Being aggrieved by the said proposal, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Union. 4. Before the said proposal could be finalised, the respondent No. 2 vide its letter dated 04-12-2014 submitted a proposal for filling up of 257 (two hundred and fifty seven) posts in the Department of Forest by direct recruitment. Being aggrieved by the said proposal, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Union. 4. The writ petition is contested by the respondents by filing an affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 wherein it is stated that pursuant to the court’s order dated 29-09-1997 passed in writ petition being C.R. No. 523 of 1995, a policy decision was taken for framing a scheme and in terms of the provisions of the said scheme, a DPC was convened and on the recommendation thereof, 26 (twenty six) Casual/Muster Roll workers could be regularised but due to a ban imposed by the Government on all appointments against the existing vacancies, further regularisation could not be done by the State Government. Considering the policy decision of the State Govt. for imposing ban on direct recruitment and the withdrawal of the said scheme, the Forest Department had submitted a proposal for conversion of the Casual/Muster Roll workers into contractual engagement. In view of the fact that the scheme for regularisation of Casual/Muster Roll workers having been withdrawn by the State Government and keeping in view of the subsequent developments, the respondents have proposed for direct recruitment for implementation of the increasing work-load in the Forest Department and that the members of the petitioner Union cannot claim absorption against the said vacancies as of right. It is also stated that there is no bar for the members of the petitioner Union to participate in the recruitment process, if eligible but they cannot be allowed to stall the recruitment process because of the length of service rendered by them. It is also stated that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , any appointment dehors the rule is illegal and cannot be regularised and no recruitment process initiated as per law prescribed under the rules cannot be stalled at the behest of the employees who were appointed, on temporary basis, dehors the rules. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , any appointment dehors the rule is illegal and cannot be regularised and no recruitment process initiated as per law prescribed under the rules cannot be stalled at the behest of the employees who were appointed, on temporary basis, dehors the rules. The members of the petitioner Union do not have any enforceable right to compel the State Government to act contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. Admittedly, a scheme was framed for regularisation of casual/M.R employees pursuant to the various court’s orders and in particular, the court’s dated 29-09-1997 passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench in C.R No. 523 of 1995. It is also not in dispute that the said writ petition being C.R. No. 523 of 1995 was filed by the present petitioner Union under its old name in which the Hon’ble High Court had specifically directed the respondents therein to prepare a scheme on rational basis taking into account of the length of services of those employees/workers of the Forest Department, rendered in the Department with the vacancy position of the related post/posts. It had been made further clear in the judgment that those workers/employees who are similarly situated with the members of the petitioner Union, should also be considered and examined by the respondents. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, it has been stated that with the approval of the State Government, DPC for regularisation of the casual/MR workers of the Forest Department, in the 1st phase, was convened on 08-07-1999 and 09-07-1999 and on the basis of its recommendation, 36 Casual/M.R workers had been regularised but due to ban imposed by the State Government on all appointments against the existing vacancies, further steps for regularisation could not be taken up by the State Government. According to the respondents, vide Government order dated 19-03-2001, the circulars/office memoranda regarding appointment and regularisation scheme of the Casual/M.R workers had been withdrawn. Considering the policy decision of the State Government imposing ban on direct recruitment and withdrawal of the scheme for regularisation, the Forest Department submitted a proposal for conversion of the Casual/M.R workers to contractual engagement but the said proposal had not been materialised for want of approval by the cabinet. 6. Considering the policy decision of the State Government imposing ban on direct recruitment and withdrawal of the scheme for regularisation, the Forest Department submitted a proposal for conversion of the Casual/M.R workers to contractual engagement but the said proposal had not been materialised for want of approval by the cabinet. 6. Relying upon the stand of the respondents as reflected in their affidavit, it is submitted by Smt. Th. Sobhana, the learned Govt. Advocate that since the law as regards regularisation of Casual/M.R workers/Ad-hoc etc. has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra), the members of the petitioner Union are not entitled to regularisation of their services. This submission is not acceptable to this court in view of the fact that in a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 432 of 2010 filed by the All Manipur Forest Guards M.R/Casual praying for implementation of the rest part of the earlier court’s order dated 29-09-1997, the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench vide its order dated 21-12-2010 has disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents therein for full implementation of the directions contained in the said judgment and order dated 29-09-1997. An appeal being W.A No. 6 of 2015 being preferred against the court’s order dated 21-12-2010 was dismissed on 10-04-2015 as the Division Bench of this court found no infirmities therein because it only directed for implementation of earlier court’s order. Being aggrieved by it, the State Government preferred a petition for special leave to appeal which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 07-07-2015 with the following observation: “In the facts of the present case, it is not necessary to go into this issue inasmuch as even as per the dicta laid down in Uma Devi’s case (supra), directions were given to regularise the services of all those who have worked for more than ten years, as a one-time measure. In view of the above, we find that the respondents were entitled to be regularised, even as per the judgment in the Uma Devi’s case (supra)” 7. By this writ petition, the petitioner Union is seeking regularisation of its members in terms of the said scheme framed pursuant to the earlier court’s order dated 29-09-1997. In view of the above, we find that the respondents were entitled to be regularised, even as per the judgment in the Uma Devi’s case (supra)” 7. By this writ petition, the petitioner Union is seeking regularisation of its members in terms of the said scheme framed pursuant to the earlier court’s order dated 29-09-1997. The prayer in the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 432 of 2010, filed by the All Manipur Forest Guards M.R/Casual, was also for implementation of the rest part of the court’s order dated 29-09-1997. The members of the both the Unions are similarly situated and are/were all working as Casual/M.R employee in the Forest Department and their interests are common because the learned Single in its judgment and order dated 29-09-1997 had directed that all Casual workers/employees, similarly situated, should be considered and examined for regularisation. Moreover, the only court’s order sought to be implemented fully is the court’s order dated 29-09-1997 passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench in CR No. 523 of 1995. In view of the above, the members of the petitioner Union are entitled to be regularised and this court has no any other option but to allow the present writ petition. 8. For the reasons stated above, the present writ petition is allowed with the direction that the members of the petitioner Union shall be regularised by the respondents by implementing the earlier court’s order dated 29-09-1997 within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. There shall be no order as to costs.