JUDGMENT DR. B.R. SARANGI, J. - The petitioner has filed this application challenging the order dated 29.01.2010 passed by Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 1458 of 2000, by which his claim for regularization has been denied. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner belonged to Schedule Caste community and acquiring qualification up to Class-VIII has registered his name in the employment exchange at Bhubaneswar. In order to manage the day to day work in Government Boys’ High School, the Headmaster of the School on 30.07.1988 sought for permission for appointment of one contingent menial in the School. The Director, Secondary Education, vide letter dated29.08.1988, permitted to appointment one contingent menial on a daily wage basis. Prior to receipt of such permission, the petitioner was appointed as contingent menial on daily wage basis @ Rs.10/- per day since 01.08.1988 and since then he is continuing in the said School. After the State Government fixed the minimum wages at Rs.25/- per day, his daily wage was raised from Rs.10/- to Rs.25/- per day, and thereafter, the same was enhanced to Rs.40/- per day. Even though requests were made from different quarters for regularization of his post, but the same having not been done, he approached the State Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar. By the time the order was passed by the State Administrative Tribunal, he had already completed more than 22 years of service, but the Tribunal relying upon the judgments of the apex Court in State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj, (2003)SCC (L & S) 828 and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Suresh Kumar Verma, (1996) 1 SCR 172 held that a person appointed on daily wage basis was not the appointee to a post according to rules. Thereby, the Tribunal did not grant any relief to the petitioner and dismissed the Original Application. Hence this writ application. 3. Mr. Thereby, the Tribunal did not grant any relief to the petitioner and dismissed the Original Application. Hence this writ application. 3. Mr. Manas Pati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner does not dispute the factual aspect as delineated above, but contended that since the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis and allowed to continue as such and completed 22 years of service by the time the order was passed by the Tribunal, in view of such long continuance in service, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that there was no post available and that the petitioner could not be regularized in service, especially when the petitioner is still continuing in service. It is further contended that the context in which the judgments of the apex Court, as referred to above, have been passed, has no application to the present case. He thus contended that if the petitioner is continuing in service by getting due permission from the competent authority and discharging his duty for a quite long period, that itself indicates that there is availability of post and he cannot be denied regularization of service. 4. Per contra, Mr. R.K. Mohapatra, learned Government Advocate has tried to justify the order passed by the Tribunal and contended that since the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis and not against any post, his service cannot be regularized and as such, the benefit of regularization, as claimed in the application, cannot be granted to him. 5. Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, since there is no factual dispute that the petitioner is rendering service on daily wage basis from 1988 onwards and by the time the Tribunal passed the impugned order he had already completed 22 years of service and as such, he is continuing in service till today. May it be that he has been allowed to continue on daily wage basis, but that ipso facto cannot preclude him from claiming for regularization in service, because of his long uninterrupted continuance in a particular post, which clearly indicates that there is availability of post, and as such the petitioner is still continuing by getting due permission from the authority concerned. Once permission has been accorded and appointment has been given, pursuant to which he is continuing, in our considered opinion, that itself cannot preclude the petitioner from claiming regularization in service. The cases of Tilak Raj and Suresh Kumar Verma (supra), on which reliance has been placed by the Tribunal, have been decided on the facts of the said cases only, but the same are not applicable to the present case. More so, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the judgment of the apex Court in Secretary State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others (2006) 4 SCC 1 ,wherein taking into consideration the long continuance of the employees in service, it has been held in paragraph 54 as follows: “One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where 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 regularisation 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 regularise 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 six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” 6. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” 6. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that as the petitioner has completed 22 years of continuous service by the time the Tribunal passed the order impugned, and he is continuing till date as such, his case should be considered in the light of the judgment rendered in Umadevi (supra). Accordingly, the order dated 29.01.2010 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Annexure-10 is set aside and the opposite parties are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the Umadevi (supra) as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order. 7. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order to costs. Petition allowed.