JUDGMENT S.Vishwajith Shetty, J. - The appellants who are respondents No.1 to 4 in W.P. No.104120/2015 have filed this intra Court appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 01.03.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. We have heard Shri V.S. Kalasurmath, learned H.C.G.P. appearing on behalf of appellants. The respondent is served and unrepresented. 3. The respondent herein had filed writ petition before this Court contending that he was appointed on daily wages against the full time post on 06.09.1984 and later on he was transferred to the monitoring unit as Gauge Reader vide order dated 29.12.1987 as per Annexure-A. Subsequently he was transferred to the post of Work Inspector vide order dated 04.08.1994 as per Annexure-B and he was continued in the said post on daily wage basis till he attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2005. It is his further case that he had approached this Court in W.P.No.17875/2004 and the said writ petition was disposed of in terms of the order made in W.P.Nos.42096-42113/2001 dated 02.06.2005. Pursuant to the order passed in W.P.No.17875/2004, petitioner gave representation seeking regularization of his services but the same was not considered and kept pending on the ground that the Hon'ble Apex Court was seized of the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 . Before Umadevi's case was finally disposed of on 10.04.2006, the respondent herein had attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2005. Thereafterwards, the representation submitted by the respondent for regularization of his services was rejected on the ground that he had already retired and therefore, he was not eligible to have his services regularized. It is in these circumstances, respondent had filed W.P.No.104120/2015 before this Court. Thereafterwards, the representation submitted by the respondent for regularization of his services was rejected on the ground that he had already retired and therefore, he was not eligible to have his services regularized. It is in these circumstances, respondent had filed W.P.No.104120/2015 before this Court. Learned Single judge, vide impugned order, quashed the impugned endorsements at Annexures-V and W and issued directions to the respondents to consider the case of the respondent for grant of retiral benefits keeping in view the length of services and the regulations applicable in that regard towards payment of retiral benefits and such consideration was directed to be done taking into consideration of the Government's proceedings dated 25.08.2006 vide Annexure-L and further ordered that the respondent shall be extended the similar benefits as extended to the employees detailed in Annexure-L. The respondents in the Writ Petition have filed this Writ Appeal questioning the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 4. Learned H.C.G.P. appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the appointment of the respondent was temporary in nature and not against any sanctioned vacancy. The respondent never joined Government services on regular basis and he was only accommodated to fill up the vacancy. In view of the scarcity of manpower, the services of some experienced people were continued as daily wagers. He further submitted that respondent had retired even before the judgment of Umadevi's case rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and therefore, he is not entitled for regularisation. 5. Perusal of Annexures-A and B shows that the respondent was appointed against a sanctioned post on 09.10.1986 for setting up of a Monitoring Cell under Indo-Dutch Water Management Pilot Project which was a temporary establishment. However, pending sanction to phase-II of this Pilot Project, services of the staff was continued which was objected to by the audit department and therefore, services of those staff including the respondent was shifted to the regular establishment to avoid audit objection vide order dated 04.08.1994 as per Annexure-B. Thereafter respondent's services were continued in the said establishment till he attained age of superannuation on 31.05.2005. Though this Court in W.P.No.17875/2004, had directed to consider the case of the respondent for regularization in terms of the similar order made in W.P.Nos.42096- 42113/2001, for no valid reasons, the petitioner's representation in this regard was not considered. Though this Court in W.P.No.17875/2004, had directed to consider the case of the respondent for regularization in terms of the similar order made in W.P.Nos.42096- 42113/2001, for no valid reasons, the petitioner's representation in this regard was not considered. Learned Single Judge after appreciating the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.17875/2004 and in W.P.No.65898/2011 and also having regard to the proceedings dated 25.08.2006 produced at Annexure-L, wherein the Government has regularized the services of such persons who have been appointed, post 01.07.1984 as against the posts which were lying vacant, has rightly quashed the impugned endorsements and directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for grant of retiral benefits keeping in view the length of services and the regulations applicable in that regard towards payment of retiral benefits. It is needless to state that the length of services is required to be considered on the basis of Annexures-A and B. 6. We therefore do not find any valid reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. 7. The time granted to the appellants to consider the case of respondent shall stand extended by another three months from today having regard to the prevailing Covid-19 circumstances. No costs.