JUDGMENT Kh. Nobin Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri R.K. Nokulsana, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioners and Shri Y. Ashang, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners praying that the ad-hoc services of the petitioners No. 1, 3 and 2 be regularised/linked up with effect from 07-05-1999 and 15-11-1997 respectively for the purpose of pensionary and other service benefits. 3.1. According to the petitioners, the petitioners applied for the post of Workshop Attendant, Government Polytechnic and were selected for the same. As per Government's approval, the petitioners No. 1 and 3 were appointed to the post of Workshop Attendant on ad-hoc basis vide order dated 07-05-1999 issued by the Controller of Technical Education, Manipur and the Government's approval for appointment of the petitioner No. 2 to the post of Workshop Attendant on ad-hoc basis was conveyed vide order dated 15-11-1998 issued by the Under Secretary (Hr. Edn.), Government of Manipur and accordingly, the petitioner No. 2 was appointed to the said post of ad-hoc basis. The ad-hoc appointments of the petitioners were initially extended for a period of 6 (six) months and were subsequently extended from time to time without any break till when the petitioners were appointed on regular basis, on the recommendation of a DPC, with immediate effect vide order dated 30-04-2008 issued by the Controller of Technical Education, Manipur.. 3.2. After having been appointed on regular basis, the petitioners made requests to the concerned authorities for linking up of their services rendered on ad-hoc/officiating etc. for counting as qualifying service for pension and other service benefits in terms of the O.M. dated 05-07-2003 issued by the State Government. Since no effective action was taken by the respondents, the present writ petition had been filed. 4. It is contented by Shri R.K. Nokulsana, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the petitioners are entitled to linking up of their services rendered by them on ad-hoc for counting as qualifying service for purpose of pensionary benefits in terms of the O.M. dated 05-07-2003 and moreover, their cases are covered by various decisions rendered earlier by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench. On the other hand, Shri Y. Ashang, learned Government, relying upon the affidavit-in-opposition, has submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to linking up of their services rendered by them on ad-hoc for counting as qualifying service for purpose of pensionary benefits because they do not fulfil the conditions contained in the said O.M. dated 05-07-2003. 5. The subject matter in issue relates to the interpretation of the said O.M. dated 05-07-2003 because interestingly both the counsels appearing for the parties have relied upon it, may be different paras thereof. Shri R.K. Nokulsana, Senior Advocate has relied upon para 1(ii), the relevant portion of which is given as under: “1(ii)......... Moreover, in case of employees who became a regular appointees by way of direct recruitment duly recommended by a competent DPC, then their past ad-hoc service if there is no break may be regularised for counting pensionary benefits only.” Shri Y. Ashang, learned Government advocate has relied upon para 2(ii), the relevant portion of which is given as under: “2(ii)........... In case they have not been regularized as above then their cases may be considered subject to the following conditions. (a) That the ad-hoc appointments should be made on the recommendation of a duly constituted Selection Committee/Departmental Promotion Committee; (b) That the initial ad-hoc appointments should be followed by regular appointments without any break of service; (c) That the ad-hoc employees should fulfil the criteria/provisions contained in the respective recruitment rules for appointment to the post at the time of initial appointment; (d) That ad-hoc appointment was made against the clear vacancy of the post.” 6. Admittedly, the purpose of the said O.M. dated 05-07-2003 is to allow request for counting the service rendered either on ad-hoc or officiating or any other form as qualifying service prior to regular service for pensionary and other benefits. Admittedly, the purpose of the said O.M. dated 05-07-2003 is to allow request for counting the service rendered either on ad-hoc or officiating or any other form as qualifying service prior to regular service for pensionary and other benefits. The said O.M. dated 05-07-2003 can be divided into two parts - “Part one - cases where the Hon'ble Court has directed State Government to regularise service retrospectively with effect from the dates the employees were appointed on ad-hoc or officiating basis; and Part two - cases where requests were made by the employees for counting of their uninterrupted service rendered by them on ad-hoc, officiating capacity just preceding their regular employment.” Part one is dealt with in para 1 of the O.M. dated 05-07-2003 and para 1(i) talks about Government servants who were first appointed either substantively or in officiating or in temporary capacity and about whom the courts have directed for counting of qualifying service for pensionary benefits. Such Government servants can be given the benefits of O.M. dated 05-07-2003 by complying with the court order without referring to Department of Personnel. Para 1(ii) talks about Government servants whose ad-hoc services were regularised pursuant to the court's directions and their cases can also be considered after ascertaining how they became regular appointees. In case the ad-hoc service of a Government servant was regularised under the various schemes vide O.Ms dated 31-05-1986, 09-10-1992 and 22-08-1994 pursuant to the court's direction, no benefits under the O.M. dated 05-07-2003 can be given because the retrospective regularisations were not allowed under the said schemes vide O.Ms dated 31-05-1986, 09-10-1992 and 22-08-1994. However, employees who became regular appointees pursuant to the court's direction by way of direct recruitment duly recommended by a competent DPC can be given the benefits of the O.M. dated 05-07-2003. Part two is dealt with in para 2 of the O.M. dated 05-07-2003 and para 2(i) provides that request for counting of uninterrupted service rendered in ad-hoc/officiating capacity for pensionary purpose may be agreed to in case of officiating service. Part two is dealt with in para 2 of the O.M. dated 05-07-2003 and para 2(i) provides that request for counting of uninterrupted service rendered in ad-hoc/officiating capacity for pensionary purpose may be agreed to in case of officiating service. Para 2(ii) provides that in case the ad-hoc employees became regular appointees under the said schemes vide O.Ms dated 31-05-1986, 09-10-1992 and 22-08-1994 mentioned in para 1(ii), no benefits under the O.M. dated 05-07-2003 be given because no retrospective regularisation was allowed under the said schemes and their cases be reviewed even if retrospective regularisation having been agreed to earlier by the State Government. However, cases of those who have been regularised but not under the said schemes vide O.Ms dated 31-05-1986, 9-10-1992 and 22-08-1994, may be considered subject to the conditions mentioned therein. The only difference between the Part one and Part two is that the part one relates to the regularisation of ad-hoc service with retrospective effect made, either under the said schemes vide O.Ms dated 31-05-1986, 09-10-1992 and 22-08-1994 or otherwise, in compliance with the directions given by the Hon'ble Court and the part two relates to regularisation of ad-hoc service made, without there being any order/direction from the Hon'ble Court, either under the said schemes vide O.Ms dated 31-05-1986, 09-10-1992 and 22-08-1994 or otherwise. In other words, to apply the provisions of part one to a particular case, there ought to be an order passed by the Hon'ble Court at the time of retrospective regularisation of his ad-hoc service and in respect of part two, the regularisation of ad-hoc service ought to have been done without any order/direction from the Hon'ble Court, ie, part one with court order and part two without court order. 7. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioners were initially appointed to the post of Workshop Attendant on ad-hoc basis which were extended from time to time without any break till when the petitioners were appointed on regular basis, on the recommendation of a DPC, with immediate effect. There is no material on record to show that the said DPC was held pursuant to the order/direction passed by the Hon'ble High Court for purpose of regularising their ad-hoc service with retrospective effect from the date of ad-hoc appointment. There is no material on record to show that the said DPC was held pursuant to the order/direction passed by the Hon'ble High Court for purpose of regularising their ad-hoc service with retrospective effect from the date of ad-hoc appointment. Therefore, the cases of the petitioners will not fall under the category of part one and they will fall under the category of part two wherein four conditions are required to be fulfilled for granting benefits under the O.M. dated 05-07-2003. The petitioners are unable to produce any material to show that their initial ad-hoc appointments were made on the recommendation of a DPC and that their ad-hoc appointments were made against the clear vacancies of the post and in the absence of such material, this court has no option but to accept the contention of the learned Government Advocate that since the petitioners do not fulfil the said conditions, they are not entitled to get the benefits of linking up of their past ad-hoc service for pensionary benefits under the O.M. dated 05-07-2003. 8. The second submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the cases of the petitioners are covered by the earlier decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench and to substantiate his contention, the Senior Counsel has relied upon the earlier decisions/orders, copies of which are filed along with their reply affidavit dated 18-12-2014 and has drawn the attention of this court to those orders. On perusal of the said decisions/orders, it is found that in respect of the decisions/orders passed in W.P. (C) No. 1588 of 1999, 1929 of 2000 and 1180 of 2005, detailed facts thereof are not narrated in their respective orders and it is not clear as to whether the petitioners in those cases were regularised with retrospective effect pursuant to the directions given by the Courts or not and also as to whether they have been given benefits under provisions of part two of the O.M. dated 05-07-2003 after fulfilling the conditions mentioned therein or not. It does not seem to be any of that and therefore, it can not be held that the cases of the petitioners are covered by the said decisions/orders. It does not seem to be any of that and therefore, it can not be held that the cases of the petitioners are covered by the said decisions/orders. In so far as the last decision/judgment and order passed in W.P. (C) No. 195 of 1999 is concerned, it is very clear from the facts of that case that the petitioner therein was regularised vide Government order dated 07-08-1998 issued in compliance with the court's order dated 29-09-1997 passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench. There is nothing wrong in allowing the petitioner therein to count his past service from the date of joining the post of Functional Manager (Credit) on ad-hoc because his case falls under the Part one of the O.M. dated 05-07-2003 as explained in the preceding paras. The facts of the present case are different from that of the W.P. (C) No. 195 of 1999 and therefore, the judgment and order passed in W.P. (C) No. 195 of 1999 will not apply to the facts of the present case wherein the petitioners were not regularised pursuant to the order passed by the Court and they were regularised on the recommendation of a DPC without any direction from the court. 9. In view of the above observations, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. ___