JUDGMENT & ORDER : Mohinder Pal, J. The petitioners are a group of similarly situated temporary workers, who have approached this court by way of this petition against the Order dt. 11.06.2014, passed by the respondent no. 3, by virtue of which the petitioners' representation dt. 24.09.2013, for permitting the petitioners to appear in the one time written examination conducted by the respondent for the temporary workers of Class IV working with the respondent has been rejected. 2. The facts of the petitions are that, the petitioners herein are working as Temporary/Badli Peon in the Class IV category with the respondent, since 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 for 30 days, 85 days, 60 days, and/or 44 days respectively, with breaks, despite the fact that they were available for work as and when required. The petitioners are in service till date. 3. The petitioners herein are temporary workers, meaning thereby that they will only work as and when they are issued with the work orders, which were issued only for fixed number of days and then there would be a gap of few days and again they would be issued appointment orders at regular intervals in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners had filed an application for appearing in the one time written exam which was to be conducted by the respondent for recruiting the temporary workers in the Class IV category working with the respondent. However, the applications came to be rejected by the respondents. Hence, the petitioners approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 9502 of 2013 to Special Civil Application No. 9511 of 2013. This Hon'ble Court vide its Order dt. 31.07.2013 was pleased to dispose off the petition, permitting the petitioners to approach the respondent authorities by way of filing an appropriate representation to redress the grievance and to take a decision in accordance with law and in an expeditious manner. 4. Some of the similarly situated employees from other divisions approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by filing Civil Application No. 953 of 2005 to Civil Application No. 968 of 2005, in the case of Shri D. V. Anilkumar and Ors. vs. LIC of India, vide its Order dt. 4. Some of the similarly situated employees from other divisions approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by filing Civil Application No. 953 of 2005 to Civil Application No. 968 of 2005, in the case of Shri D. V. Anilkumar and Ors. vs. LIC of India, vide its Order dt. 18.01.2011, was pleased to direct the respondent to hold one time limited written examination for recruiting temporary workers in Class IV category, who have worked for more than 5 years with the respondent and also possess minimum qualification and age as prescribed at the relevant point of time. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondent had issued a Notification dt. 25.05.2011. As per the notification, as a one time measure, the respondent was going to conduct a written examination on 26.06.2011 in vernacular language with limited syllabus, to recruit temporary workers under Class IV category, who have worked with the respondent for more than 5 years as on 18.01.2011 and possess minimum eligible qualifications and age at the relevant time, subject to getting short listed in the exam and interview. 6. It is the case of petitioners, that they were ought to be allowed to appear in the one time written examination, as per the Order of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Notification issued by the respondent. As on 18.01.2011 the petitioners have already worked for more than 5 years with the respondent and hence, the Order dt. 11.06.2014 made by respondent, rejecting the petitioners representation is required to be quashed and set aside. 7. Respondents have contested this petition by filing detailed Affidavit in Reply, wherein the Order dt. 11.06.2014 rejecting the petitioners representation is justified on the grounds that, the petitioners are temporary workers and they must have worked for 1825 days as on 18.01.2011 to be eligible for appearing in the examination. Further, the petitioners have not challenged the Notification dt. 20.05.2011 issued by the respondent in pursuance to the Order dt. 18.01.2011 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as the exam and selection process has concluded long ago, the petitioners cannot claim any relief at this stage. 8. Further, the petitioners have not challenged the Notification dt. 20.05.2011 issued by the respondent in pursuance to the Order dt. 18.01.2011 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as the exam and selection process has concluded long ago, the petitioners cannot claim any relief at this stage. 8. In the Notification it was clearly stated that at the time of submitting application, in order to prove the eligibility for appearing in the examination, an applicant was sought to submit "Copies of Proof of Working with the Corporation for more than 5 years as on 18.01.2011 duly signed by the Chief Manager/Sr./Branch Manager In-Charge of the Branch office, Manager (P & IR)/Regional Manager (OS)" of the respective zone. Hence, the onus of furnishing the documentary proof regarding eligibility at the time of submission of application was on the candidate. Therefore, it is denied that no discussion has been made by the respondents on the aspects of calculation of 5 years in service. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners have worked with the respondents for more than 5 years as on 18.01.2011. Hence, the petitioners submitted application for appearing in the one time written exam. However, till the date of written exam, the petitioners did not receive the call letter and came to know that their application have been rejected. 10. It has been argued by the petitioners, that their case was to be considered strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Order dt. 18.01.2011, passed in Civil Application No. 953 of 2005 to Civil Application No. 968 of 2005, vide which the respondent was directed to conduct a one time written exam to recruit the temporary workers, who have worked for 5 years or more with the respondent and also satisfy other requirements like age and educational qualifications. In pursuance to the said Order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the respondent issued a Notification vide dt. 25.05.2011, according to which a temporary worker, who has worked for 5 years or more with the respondent and also satisfies other requirements like age and educational qualifications, was eligible to appear in the one time written exam. The Ld. Counsel also argued that by virtue of Order dt. 25.05.2011, according to which a temporary worker, who has worked for 5 years or more with the respondent and also satisfies other requirements like age and educational qualifications, was eligible to appear in the one time written exam. The Ld. Counsel also argued that by virtue of Order dt. 31.07.2013 passed in Special Civil Application No. 9502 of 2013 to Special Civil Application No. 9511 of 2013, by this court, the respondent was directed to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with the law. 11. It has also been argued that the Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Notification issued by the respondent, does not prescribes that the 5 years of service has to be calculated by multiplying 365 days into 5 days, which means that total number of days for rendering 5 years of service should be 1825 days. Therefore, the respondents have misinterpreted the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was never intended, as all the petitioners are working since 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and have already completed more than 6 years of service as on 18.01.2011. Besides, the Order vide dt. 11.06.2014, passed by the respondents, rejecting the petitioners representation, is made without discussing how the respondent authorities were calculating 5 years of service and it was simply stated that the petitioners had not completed 5 years of service as temporary worker with the respondent. 12. On the other hand, contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner, has been controverted by the other side by submitting that the Notification dt. 25.05.2011, issued by the respondent, was in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further, it is incorrect to say that the respondent has rejected the petitioners' representation without any discussion, because in the Notification itself, it was clarified that an applicant was required to submit proof of services for 5 years or more with the respondent at the time of submitting the application. 13. This Court has considered the submissions of both the sides. The petitioners herein, are claiming for direction to hold the one time written exam for the petitioners, who are eligible for appearing in such examination as per the Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide dt. 18.01.2011 passed in Civil Appeal No. 953 of 2005 to Civil Appeal No. 968 of 2005 and the Notification dt. 25.05.2011 issued by the respondent. 18.01.2011 passed in Civil Appeal No. 953 of 2005 to Civil Appeal No. 968 of 2005 and the Notification dt. 25.05.2011 issued by the respondent. Here, it could be seen that in the earlier round of litigation, the petitioners had filed Special Civil Application No. 9502 of 2013 to Special Civil Application No. 9511 of 2013, seeking direction to the respondent to permit the petitioners to appear in the one time written exam as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court laid in its Order vide dt. 18.01.2011. This Court vide its Order dt. 31.07.2013, disposed off the petition with permission to the petitioners to approach the respondent authorities by way of filing an appropriate application to redress the grievance of the petitioners in accordance with the law. It will be relevant to point out that the aforementioned judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court, has attained finality, as no further appeal has been preferred against the said judgments. 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court, has in its Order dt. 18.01.2011, passed in Civil Appeal No. 953 of 2005 to Civil Appeal No. 968 of 2005, issued directions to the respondent to conduct, as a one time measure, a written examination to recruit temporary workers who have worked for 5 years or more as on 18.01.2011 with the respondent and also satisfy other conditions like age and educational qualifications. In pursuance to the said Order, the respondent had issued Notification vide dt. 25.05.2011. As per the Notification, the respondent was to conduct, as a one time measure, a written examination to recruit all the temporary workers who have worked for 5 years or more as on 18.01.2011 with the respondent and also satisfy other conditions like age and educational qualifications. Here, as the petitioners are working since 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 respectively and they have already worked for more than 5 years as on 18.01.2011, they were ought to be permitted to appear in the written examination. Here, it appears that the respondents have overlooked the law laid under Order dt. 18.01.2011 as well as not complied with the directions made vide Order dt. 31.07.2013. 15. On bare perusal of the Order dt. 18.01.2011 and the Notification vide dt. Here, it appears that the respondents have overlooked the law laid under Order dt. 18.01.2011 as well as not complied with the directions made vide Order dt. 31.07.2013. 15. On bare perusal of the Order dt. 18.01.2011 and the Notification vide dt. 25.05.2011, it is apparent that it only provided that a worker should have worked for 5 years or more as on 18.01.2011 with the respondent and shall also satisfy other requirements, in order to be eligible for appearing in the one time written exam. It nowhere prescribes that the criteria of 5 years of services has to be calculated by multiplying 365 days into 5 days, meaning thereby, work for 1825 days as on 18.01.2011. The respondent, while formulating and issuing the Notification vide dt. 25.05.2011, had considered the workers eligible, who have worked for 5 years or more with the respondent and also satisfy other requirements. However, at the time of implementing the Notification and accepting the applications, respondent had all of a sudden shown a deviation and contradicted its own stand by calculating 5 years of service by multiplying 365 days into 5 years which means in order to be considered as eligible for the written exam a worker was required to have worked for 1825 days or more as on 18.01.2011. 16. The Court is unable to understand as to how the respondent has all of a sudden changed its stand. Besides, the learned advocate for Corporation has submitted that workers are required to work for 1825 days because a temporary worker works for less number of days in a year. Hence, in order to become eligible for the written exam they need to work for 1825 days as on 18.01.2011. 17. It is apparent that in the Order dt. 18.11.2011 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as under the Notification vide dt. 25.05.2011, issued by the respondent, the common subject was "temporary worker". Both the authorities must have been aware of the fact that the temporary workers, work only as and when work is allotted to them viz. for less number of days in a year, despite that fact the minimum duration of service to be eligible is laid as 5 years and not 1825 days. Hence, the respondents have just attempted to play mischief with the order of Hon'ble Apex Court and deprive the petitioners of their lawful rights. 18. for less number of days in a year, despite that fact the minimum duration of service to be eligible is laid as 5 years and not 1825 days. Hence, the respondents have just attempted to play mischief with the order of Hon'ble Apex Court and deprive the petitioners of their lawful rights. 18. Even as per the statutory law, viz. Section 25 B, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, if a worker has worked for 240 days a year, then it is deemed that he has rendered continuous service. Although the said provision is not applicable to the present matter, but if applied, the number of days of work equal to 5 years of service shall be 1200 days, by calculating 240 days into 5 day (240 x 5) and not 1825 days. 19. It is the fate of the petitioners and irony of law, as to how the respondents, by interpreting the judgment of the Apex Court in their own way, have attempted to deprive the petitioners of their lawful right to appear in the examination, for which they were eligible as well. 20. In view of the afore-going discussion, these petitions are allowed. The impugned Order dt. 11.06.2014 is quashed and set aside. The respondents, have grossly misinterpreted the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioners are hereby held eligible to appear in the one time written examination. Despite the fact that the selection process has concluded long time back, the respondents are hereby directed to conduct once again, the written exam within a period of 2 (two) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order qua for the present petitioners, subject to satisfaction of other requirements by them. Rule is made absolute.