JUDGMENT : 1. The counsel for petitioner has submitted that this matter is in fact one of the group, which came to be disposed of by this Court along with matter being Special Civil Application No. 4355 of 2006 and allied matters vide judgment and order dated 18.9.2006. It is submitted that in view thereof, as the petitioner's service has already been terminated, no further prayers could be pressed into service except the direction contained in para-18 of said judgment and order cited at bar. 2. The Court is of the view that para-18 direction shall also mutatis-mutandis governing the case of petitioner. The relevant para-18 of said judgment and order dated 18.9.2006, for the sake of ready reference, is reproduced as under: “18. Accordingly, subject to the above observations and directions to consider the cases of the eligible employees under the direction of the Supreme Court contained in paragraph 53 of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ], the prayers for the relief of regularization are denied. As far as the grievance against termination of service and prayers for reinstatement or protection against termination are concerned, they are disposed with the direction to the respondents to comply with the G.R. dated 15.7.2006 and pay to such petitioners who are already discharged and not re-employed or proposed to be discharged, the amounts of notice pay and compensation in terms of the said G.R. Protection or injunction against termination of service is denied with the clarification that it should not be understood to mean that all the petitioners whose services are required and who are presently in service, with or without an interim injunction of the court, have to be necessarily discharged by the respondents. Since raison d'etre and justification for the apprehension of huge future liabilities in respect of such employees are removed by the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (supra), the respondents may as well consider the issue of redefining the term and conditions of such contracts of service on a just and reasonable basis. Rule is made absolute only to the aforesaid extent, with no order as to costs. Interim relief, in whichever matters it is operating, stands vacated. The civil applications are disposed as not surviving in line with this judgment. Rule is made absolute only to the aforesaid extent, with no order as to costs. Interim relief, in whichever matters it is operating, stands vacated. The civil applications are disposed as not surviving in line with this judgment. Sd/- D.H.WAGHELA, J. Upon pronouncement of the above judgment, it was requested by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the interim relief which was granted earlier in several petitions may be continued and extended at least for a period of four weeks. Learned A.G.P. Mr.Rawal has objected. In view of the above final decision after full hearing, there is no justification for extending the interim relief and, therefore, the request is rejected.” 3. In view thereof, para-18 of said judgment and order dated 18.9.2006 would governing the case of petitioner. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Rule is discharged with aforesaid direction. No costs.