ORDER : Aniruddha Bose, J. The controversy involved in this appeal relates to plea of regularisation of 29 writ petitioners in the Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Government of Jharkhand. This department was earlier known as the Public Health and Engineering Department. The writ petitioners were appointed in the year 1989 in different posts of the said department on daily wage basis. Dispute was raised on their behalf under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, when the State sought to disengage them. The dispute was referred by the authority under the said Act on the following point before the Presiding Officer Labour Court, Ranchi; “Whether the dismissal and non-absorption of 37 acting daily wages Hastrashid employees as mentioned in schedule “K” in work charged establishment by Public Health Engg; Division, East Ranchi (Department of PHED, Jharkhand) is lawful. If not what other relief there employees are entitled to?” 2. The labour Court returned the reference upon deciding the dispute in favour of the workmen. The Labour Court found that the condition precedent for termination of service of the employees as stipulated under Section 25 F of 1947 Act was breached in their cases. It was held by the Labour Court:- “In the instant case the consistent evidence of the concerned workmen had been in the employment of the P.H.E.D department for the last several year 1993 to 1996 without any break and it has not been disputed by the management by adducing evidence that all the concerned workmen had completed 240 days in a year. It is further submitted that it is not the case of the management that the said workers are not qualified to be appointed even today same and similar nature of work is being taken by the management. Under these circumstances I am unable to accept the contention for the management that no work is available to the concerned workman. The management’s witness i.e., M.W.3 Kedar Nath Chief Engineer P.H.E.D. produced the cyclostyle copy of the documents of the department and has stated that as per this documents there was 571 sanctioned post and out of 571 sanctioned post presently 110 workers are appointed on regular basis and as per this documents the requirement of the workmen are 571. The management’s witness i.e., M.W.3 Kedar Nath Chief Engineer P.H.E.D. produced the cyclostyle copy of the documents of the department and has stated that as per this documents there was 571 sanctioned post and out of 571 sanctioned post presently 110 workers are appointed on regular basis and as per this documents the requirement of the workmen are 571. In view of the discussion made above I am unable to accept the contention of the management that the workman have not been appointed in a regular manner and procedure relating to the temporary appointment of the state government and its various order/circular have not been followed and therefore these appointment being illegal this cannot be regularised. So far the retrenchment of the concerned workman are concerned, the law in this regard is very well established since many years. In view of non-compliance of mandatory provision of 25F of I.D.Act, the order of termination becomes null and void and mere declaration to that effect is necessary that the workmen were deemed to be continuous in service and they are entitled to get all the consequential benefit.” 3. The direction of the labour Court was:- “27. Point No.3:- So far this issue is concerned, admittedly the requirements of Section 25 F of the I.D.Act have not been complied with in this case. Therefore, in view of the observation made above, I have no hesitation to hold that the concerned workmen are entitled to be reinstated in service with fullback wages. As such their termination amounts to retrenchment and non-payment of retrenchment compensation with notice or notice pay in lieu of such notice would render such order of termination null and void abinitio and the workmen concerned are entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity and in normal course they would be entitled to full back wages for the intervening period.” 4. The State had challenged the legality of the award by invoking the constitutional writ jurisdiction of this Court, but failed in having the award upturned. The learned Single Judge of this Court found no material for interfering with the award in a judgment delivered in W.P.(L) No. 3962 of 2006 on 7/8th July, 2008. The intra-court appeal filed by the State, which was registered as L.P.A. No. 484 of 2008 appears to have had been heard in two phases. The learned Single Judge of this Court found no material for interfering with the award in a judgment delivered in W.P.(L) No. 3962 of 2006 on 7/8th July, 2008. The intra-court appeal filed by the State, which was registered as L.P.A. No. 484 of 2008 appears to have had been heard in two phases. By an order dated 4th August, 2009 a Coordinate Bench of this Court repelled the challenge to the order of reinstatement contained in the award but kept the point of payment of back wages open to be decided at a later date. The Coordinate Bench, however modified the award on the question of back wages and on 2nd February, 2017, the view of the labour Court that full back wages shall be paid was sustained. The State appealed against the judgment of the Coordinate Bench before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was registered as Civil Appeal No. 9832 of 2018. The Hon’ble Supreme Court decided the appeal on 20th September 2018, holding, on the question of back wages:- “19. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it just and proper and in the interest of justice to award to these 37 workmen 50% of the total back wages. 20. This we award to the workmen in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for doing substantial justice to the parties concerned having reiterated the legal principles which govern the question of award of back wages. 21. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned order is modified to the extent indicated above.” The direction for reinstatement, however, was not interfered with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in an earlier appeal filed by the State, which was registered as special leave to Appeal (Civil) CC 8380 of 2011. The said appeal was dismissed on 15th July, 2011. 5. The writ petition out of which this appeal originates was filed by the same set of 29 workmen mainly praying for their absorption in regular service. This plea was rejected by the State by an order passed on 23rd September, 2016, a copy of which has been made Annexure-9 to the memorandum of appeal. 5. The writ petition out of which this appeal originates was filed by the same set of 29 workmen mainly praying for their absorption in regular service. This plea was rejected by the State by an order passed on 23rd September, 2016, a copy of which has been made Annexure-9 to the memorandum of appeal. In that order bearing No. 1407 it was observed and directed:- ^^dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark dk dk;kZy;] is;ty ,oa LoPNrk ÁeaMy] jk¡ph iwoZ] jk¡phA dk;kZy; vkns'k la[;k----------------- fnukad--------------- ljdkj d mi&lfpo] is;ty ,oa LoPNrk foHkkx] >kj[k.M] jk¡ph ds i=kad 3680 fnukad 21-08-2015 ds vkyksd esa Jh uUn fd'kksj flag ,oa vU; ds vH;kosnu esa fu;fer djus gsrq vkosnu ÁkIr gS ds laca/k esa lqfoosfpr vkns'k nh tkrh gSA mijksDr of.kZr vkosnu ds rjg ikfjr U;k;kns'k ds vkyksd esa >kj[k.M ljdkj dkfeZd Á'kklfud lq/kkj rFkk jktHkk"kk foHkkx ds vf/klwpuk la[;k 1348 fnukad 13-02-2015 }kjk jkT; ljdkj ds v/khuLFk vfu;fer :i ls fu;qDr ,oa dk;Zjr dfeZ;ksa dh lsok fu;fer djus gsrq fu;ekoyh cukbZ xbZ gS ¼bl fu;ekoyh dk laf{kIr uke & ;g fu;ekoyh >kj[k.M ljdkj ds v/khuLFk vfu;fer :i ls fu;qDr ,oa dk;Zjr dfeZ;ksa dh lsok fu;ferhdj.k fu;ekoyh 2015 dgh tk,xh ftlesa Áko/kku fuEu gS %& 1- dukZVd ljdkj ,oa vU; cuke mek nsoh ,oa vU; ¼flfoy vihy la[;k 3595&3612@99¼2½ 1861&2063] 3849@2001] 3520&24@2002 rFkk 1968@2006½ esa fnukad 10-04-2006 dks ikfjr U;k;kns'k dh frfFk dks vk/kkj frfFk ekurs gq, mDr frfFk ds iwoZ U;k;ky;ksa vFkok U;k;kf/kdj.kksa ds }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ls vkPNkfnr ekeyksa dks NksM+dj l`ftr inksa ds fo:) dk;Zjr ,oa de ls de 10 o"kksZ dh yxkrkj lsok djus okys vfu;fer :i ls fu;qDr dfeZ;ksa dh lsok fu;fefrdj.k ij fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA 2- ;fn fdlh dehZ }kjk /kkfjr in Lohd`r u gks rFkk og fu/kkZfjr 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk iwjh ugha djrk gks rks dkykUrj esa /kkfjr in Lohd`r gksus ,oa in/kkjd }kjk fu;ferhdj.k ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk,xkA 3- mDr fu;qfDr;k¡ l{ke Ákf/kdkjh ds }kjk dh xbZ gksaA 4- lacaf/kr inksa ij fu;qfDr ds fy, dehZ fu/kkZfjr 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ,oa vuqHko /kkfjr djrs gksA 5- blds fy, inksa dk l`tu ugha fd;k tk,xkA 6- fu;ferhdj.k esa vkj{k.k fo"k;d Áko/kkuksa dk iw.kZ vuqikyu fd;k tk,xkA 7- fu;ferhdj.k ds ykHk fu;fer fu;qfDr dh frfFk ls ns; gksaxsA 8- bl fu;qfDr ds fy, dkfeZd Á'kklfud lq/kkj rFkk jktHkk"kk foHkkx ds }kjk fuxZr ifji= la[;k 16441 fnukad 03-12-1980 ,oa lewg ¼x½ ds inksa ij fu;qfDr ds fy, p;u ÁfØ;k fu:fir djus okys ifji= f'kfFky le>s tk,axsA 9- ;g fu;e mu inksa ij fu;qfDr;ksa ds fy, ykxw ugha gksxk] ftu inksa ij fu;qfDr ds fy, vk;ksx@p;u Ákf/kdkj@fu;qDr ds le; dk;Zjr FksA 10- mDr dkjZokbZ ek= ,d leO;ogkj ds fy, dh tk,xh ,oa bls iwoksZnkgj.k ugha ekuk tk,xkA ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds mDr vkns'k ds Øe esa mDr jkT; ljdkj }kjk vf/klwfpr ¼fu;ekoyh½ ds vkyksd esa Jh uUn fd'kksj flag ,oa vU; ds nkoksa dh leh{kk miyC/k vfHkys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;kA leh{kksijkUr ;g ik;k x;k fd vkosnudRrkZ dh fu;qfDr uk Lohd`r in ds fo:) ;k uk fdlh l{ke inkf/kdkjh ;k foHkkx ds }kjk oS/kkfud ÁfØ;k viukdj dh xbZ FkhA buls Je iqLrd dk dk;Z fy;k tkrk jgk gSA vr% dkfeZd Á'kklfud lq/kkj rFkk jktHkk"kk foHkkx }kjk vf/klwfpr fu;ekoyh ds Øe esa fu;ferhdj.k dk nkok Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha gSA vr% mDr of.kZr ifjis{; esa dfeZ;ksa dk nkok ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ,oa fu:fir fu;ekoyh vf/klwpuk la[;k 1348 fnukad 13-02-2015 esa fufgr Áko/kku ds vkyksd esa vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA gŒ@& dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] is;ty ,oa LoPNrk ÁeaMy] jk¡ph iwoZ] jk¡phA** “Office of the Executive Engineer Drinking Water and Sanitation Division Ranchi East, Ranchi. Reasoned Order In view of Letter No. 3680 dated-21.08.2015 of Deputy Secretary to the Government, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi, an application received for regularization of Shree Nand Kishore Singh and others whereupon reasoned order is being passed. In view of the judicial order passed in connection with aforementioned application, a rule has been framed vide Notification No. 1348 dated-13.02.2015 of Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Jharkhand Government for regularization of services of irregularly appointed and working employee under the State Government (the Brief name of this rule shall be called the Regularization of services of irregularly appointed and working employees under the Jharkhand Government Rules, 2015 and its provisions are as follows:- 1. Considering order dated-10.04.2006 passed in Government of Karnataka and others Versus Uma Devi and others (Civil Appeal No. 3595’3612/99II-1861-2063, 3849/2001, 3520-24/2002 and 1968/2006) as the base date and except the matters covered by the order passed by the Courts or Tribunal before the above date, the regularization of services of irregularly appointed employees may be considered who have regularly worked for at least 10 years against the sanctioned posts. 2. If the post held by an employee is not sanctioned and he does not fulfill the prescribed educational qualification then regularization of the incumbent shall not be considered in case the post held is sanctioned in future. 3. The above appointments have been made by the competent authority. 4. The employees hold minimum prescribed educational qualification and experience for appointment against the concerned posts. 5. The post shall not be created for the same. 6. The provisions related to reservation shall completely be followed in regularization. 7 The benefit of regularization shall be admissible from the date of regular appointment. 8. For these appointments, Circular No. 16441 dated-03.12.1980 issued by Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha and Circular framed for the selection process for appointment on Group-C posts shall be considered relaxed. 9. This rule shall not be applicable for appointments against those posts, for which Commission/Selection Authority were working at the time of appointment. 10. The above action shall be taken as one time measure and it shall not be considered a precedent. Pursuant to rules notified by the State Government, as a sequel to the aforesaid order passed by Hon’ble Court, the claims of Sri Nand Kishore Singh and others are reviewed on the basis of available records. 10. The above action shall be taken as one time measure and it shall not be considered a precedent. Pursuant to rules notified by the State Government, as a sequel to the aforesaid order passed by Hon’ble Court, the claims of Sri Nand Kishore Singh and others are reviewed on the basis of available records. After review, it has been found that the appointment of the applicant was done neither against the sanctioned posts nor by any competent authority or department after following legal procedure. The labour work is being taken from them. Therefore, the claim for regularization is not acceptable in view of rules notified by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid context, the claim of employees is rejected in view of order of the Hon’ble High Court and under the provision as contained in rules framed vide Notification No.1348, dated 13.02.2015.” (english translation of the order) 6. The learned First Court allowed the writ petition holding, inter alia:- “10. In the first place, it needs to be recorded that claim of the petitioners is for regularisation of their services, but not in terms of the Regularisation Rules of 2015. They are not illegally appointed daily-wages workers and by virtue of Award dated 29.06.2005 they must be treated as regularly appointed employees under the respondent-State. One-time scheme floated by the State of Jharkhand vide Notification dated 13.02.2015 is not the only scheme for regularisation. It is also not true that a daily-wages worker, though not irregularly appointed, can be regularised only by framing one-time scheme for regularisation. Real import of the decision in “Secretary, State of Karnatak and Others vs. Umadevi and others” (2006) 4 SCC 1 (paragraph no. 53) is that minor procedural lapse in appointment should not end in termination of service. It is in the nature of recognition of a right in the ad-hoc/daily-wags/temporary employees who were irregularly appointed. In “Nihal Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and others” (2013) 14 SCC 65, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, “Umadevi” judgment cannot become a licence for exploitation by the State and its instrumentalities. However, petitioners’ claim for regularisation needs to be examined separately and independently. The petitioners, who were initially appointed more than 28 years ago and after their reinstatement about 5 years under the respondent-State, have certainly become entitled for regularisation. However, petitioners’ claim for regularisation needs to be examined separately and independently. The petitioners, who were initially appointed more than 28 years ago and after their reinstatement about 5 years under the respondent-State, have certainly become entitled for regularisation. Further continuance of the petitioners on daily-wages, denying them benefits of regular employees, would be unfair and contrary to the rule of fair play in action. View thus, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled for an order for regularisation of their service on the post on which they were initially appointed. By way of clarification it is added that for regularisation in service creation of permanent additional posts is not necessary.” 7. It would be evident from the judgment of the learned First Court, the factum of confirmation of the award of the labour Court uptil the Hon’ble Supreme Court weighed in favour of the writ petitioners. Mr. Ashish Kr. Shekhar, learned Advocate for the State-appellants submits that the State had complied with the directions contained in the award by restoring the writ petitioners as temporary employees of the department which was their status at the time they were sought to be disengaged. Next point urged on behalf of the State is that the writ petitioners had not been engaged as permanent employees through a valid selection process for such engagement and hence even after the award they cannot claim such status. 8. The learned First Court, however, considered the fact that at the time of entry of the writ petitioners in the department even in the capacity of temporary staff, there were 571 sanctioned posts in total and at present only 110 workers stand appointed on regular basis in such vacancies. The same position prevailed at the time the dispute was referred to the Labour Court. There is clear finding of the Labour Court that the writ petitioners were engaged following the regular process and no case has been made out of any illegal entry into the service through backdoor. It was in the nature, if State’s argument is to be accepted, legitimate entry but to the outhouse and not the main residence. The learned First Court has considered the fact that the writ petitioners were working since 1989 in different posts on daily wage basis under the aforesaid department. It was in the nature, if State’s argument is to be accepted, legitimate entry but to the outhouse and not the main residence. The learned First Court has considered the fact that the writ petitioners were working since 1989 in different posts on daily wage basis under the aforesaid department. The State sought to question the claim of permanency of the writ petitioners on the ground that they do not fulfil the terms of regularisation Rule, 2015. The violation pointed out is that they were not working against sanctioned posts. In the passage of the judgment of the learned First court, which we have quoted above, the rationale of allowing their claim has been explained clearly. Since there were vacancies at the material point of time and the petitioners’ claim for reinstatement stood recognized by the Labour Court, the State’s contention that they were not appointed against permanent vacancies by the competent authority does not satisfy us. The Regularisation Rules themselves contemplate inclusion of those left out from the regular channel of employment. There is no flaw in engagement of the writ petitioners in temporary posts. The finding of the Labour Court is that at the material point of time there were 571 sanctioned posts. Learned counsel for the State could not bring to our notice any material to demonstrate that such a finding was factually incorrect. No other ineligibility of the writ petitioners could be pointed out on behalf of the State. The State’s contention is that regularisation is for those who have been admitted into permanent sanctioned posts but through irregular channel. We find that the writ petitioners’ cases better placed than those irregular entrants. 9. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed.