ORDER : SLP(C) No. 6697/2016 1. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Nigam, Nagar Palika Karamchari Sangh states, that the petitioner does not wish to assail the determination rendered by the High Court, with reference to Arun Kumar Tiwari (respondent no.1, before the High Court). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states, that the petitioner is only aggrieved with the direction contained in paragraph 52(iv) of the impugned judgment, which is reproduced below : “(iv) The Chief Secretary of the State of Madhya Pradesh shall call upon the Secretary of the respective departments of the State, to enquire into whether any employee in his Department has been or was appointed on regular basis without following the selection process prescribed in the relevant rules framed therefor after coming into force of such rules; and to proceed against all such persons as also against the person(s) responsible for making such appointment, in accordance with law ; and submit report in that behalf to the Chief Secretary of the State of Madhya Pradesh within four months from today. The Chief Secretary of the State of Madhya Pradesh must then initiate necessary proposal for issuance of a general Government order or on case to case basis, to formally revoke all such illegal appointments made in similar manner without following the selection procedure prescribed by the relevant recruitment rules. The services rendered by such persons consequential to revocation of appointment be treated as only contractual appointment during the relevant period and that no other benefit shall be given or will accrue to them as in the case of regular appointee appointed as per the prescribed selection process for recruitment. 3. We find no infirmity in the aforesaid direction. We would however like to clarify, that the expression “...in accordance with law...” used by the High Court in the above direction, would necessarily mean, that in case any action is to be taken against a particular individual employee, it will be necessary for the authorities to proceed against him by issuing a notice to him and affording an opportunity of hearing, as is contemplated under the rules of natural justice. We wish to further clarify, that the expression “...in accordance with law...” would protect all such employees whose appointments have been made in consonance with the statutory provisions, or under a valid policy decision of the State Government, and/or in consonance with a judgment rendered on the subject of regular appointment, or regularization of appointment. 4. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. SLP(C) Nos.___________ /2017(CC 3582/2017) 1. Delay condoned. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we find no justification whatsoever to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the High Court. It is however pertinent to mention, that the petitioner was appointed on regular basis in the Department of Water Resources on 21.05.1998. He continued to discharge his duties in the above capacity, till his appointment in the Department of Water Resources was set aside, by the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court (in Writ Petition No. 198 of 1999, on 6.8.2015). The High Court observed in paragraph 48 of the impugned judgment, as under : “...The period for which the respondent no.1 has worked on the post be treated only as a contractual appointment without accrual of any other rights, until this order of quashing his appointment is passed today....” 3. In terms of the aforesaid observation, it may well have been possible for the employer, to recover the balance of the dues paid to Arun Kumar Tiwari, whatever additional remuneration was paid to him as a regular employee, in excess of his entitlement as a daily wage employee. We are of the view, that such a determination at the hands of the employer, would be too harsh, as that would entail recoveries commencing from the period of his regular appointment under the Department of Water Resources, with effect from 21.5.1998. It is therefore, that we are constrained to direct, that no recoveries would be made from the petitioner, with reference to the emoluments that were paid to him in furtherance of the letter of appointment dated 21.5.1998, till the passing of the impugned judgment on 6.8.2015. 4. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.