JUDGMENT Akil Kureshi; CJ.:-- These appeals are filed by the State Government to challenge the common judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated 20th November 2017, in Writ Petitions (C) 414 and 443 of 2014. Initially the State Government filed one appeal. However, since by the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge had dealt with two writ petitions, we had insisted on the State filing a separate appeal. That is how Writ Appeal 181 of 2021 came to be filed subsequently. Issues being identical we may refer to Writ Appeal 83 of 2018 for convenience. [2] Brief facts are as under : Original petitioners (three in number) were engaged as Radiographers under the Director of Health Services under a communication, dated 19th July 2005, for a period of one year on contractual basis on a fixed remuneration of Rs.2,730/- per month. Their services were extended from time to time. Their fixed remuneration was also revised periodically. At one stage, the Director of Health Services passed an order, dated 30th May 2012, bringing over the petitioners on the regular scale after completion of five years of service in fixed salary regime. Accordingly, the three petitioners were ordered to be brought over to regular scale w.e.f July 2010. The Director of Health Services, however, subsequently passed an order on 3rd September 2014 cancelling the earlier order dated 30th May 2012 on the ground that same was a mistake. This was on the basis of a memorandum dated 24th April 2014 issued by the Finance Department pointing out that these petitioners were not engaged on sanctioned posts but were engaged purely on contractual basis. According to the Government thus, giving them fixed remuneration was not a temporary measure of five years before being brought over to regular scale as per Government decision in regular recruitments but the petitioners were asked to work against ad-hoc vacancies created for limited period and extended from time to time. At that stage, the petitioners approached the High Court and sought protection against their downward revision of pay. They also sought permanent absorption in Government service. [3] The Government opposed the prayers mainly contending that the petitioners were not regularly selected and appointed against sanctioned posts. They cannot be regularized. [4] The learned Single Judge agreed with the State Government that the petitioners were not recruited against sanctioned posts. They also sought permanent absorption in Government service. [3] The Government opposed the prayers mainly contending that the petitioners were not regularly selected and appointed against sanctioned posts. They cannot be regularized. [4] The learned Single Judge agreed with the State Government that the petitioners were not recruited against sanctioned posts. However, the learned Judge was of the opinion that their entry was not through backdoor since all the elements of public selection were present. Applications for appointment were invited and selection process was carried out. The learned Judge was of the opinion that the petitioners cannot be made to work on fixed salary basis permanently. While disposing of the writ petitions therefore by the impugned judgment, it was directed that the petitioners shall be considered for regularization on available vacancies and if vacancies are not available, by creating supernumerary posts. [5] Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused documents on record we find that the department had advertised selection for engagement of Radiographers under a notification dated 7th May 2005 which provided that such engagement would be on a contractual basis for a period of one year on contractual remuneration of Rs.2,730/- per month. The essential qualifications required were H.S.(+2 stage) with Science pass and two years diploma in Radiography from recognized institution. After conducting selection process of all eligible candidates who had applied in response to the said notification, the Director of Health Services issued order dated 19th July 2005 appointing the petitioners as Radiographers for a period of one year on a remuneration of Rs.2,730/- per month. One such order of appointment dated 19th July 2005 refers to a letter dated 22nd February 2005 of the Department of Health and Family Welfare under which such posts were created. The said letter dated 22nd February 2005 is also on record and which provides that the Deputy Secretary, Government of Tripura, was pleased to convey the sanction of the Governor for creation of the posts for engagement of workers on contractual basis for one year which may be extended on the basis of need or performance. Thus, clearly the engagement of the petitioners was not against a regular sanctioned post but against adhoc posts created by the Government for a limited period. [6] Be that as it may, the petitioners continued in the same capacity and discharged their duties as the Radiographers for years together. Thus, clearly the engagement of the petitioners was not against a regular sanctioned post but against adhoc posts created by the Government for a limited period. [6] Be that as it may, the petitioners continued in the same capacity and discharged their duties as the Radiographers for years together. Their engagements were extended and their fixed pay was revised from time to time. Currently we are informed, they receive a consolidated sum of Rs.20,687/- without any other further benefits of allowances or pay protection. [7] As noted, on 30th May 2012, they got a temporary reprieve when the Director of Health Services issued an order bringing them over to the regular pay scales with effect from completion of five years of their initial engagement. This was quickly corrected by a subsequent order, dated 3rd September 2014, on the ground that granting the regular scales was an error. [8] It can thus be seen that learned Single Judge was correct in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners were not appointed against the regular vacancies of sanctioned strength in the cadre. Contrary to what Mr. Arijit Bhowmik for the original petitioners has argued before us, the record would demonstrate that the petitioners were engaged on ad-hoc vacancies so created by the department and that such arrangement was made for a period of one year at a time. If the case of the petitioners was that the single judge committed an error in coming to the said conclusion, they should have challenged the judgement since, besides this finding which is adverse to the petitioners, the single judge has given very limited relief to the petitioners. Having said that, however, few significant facts emerging from the record cannot be lost sight of. Right from the year 2005 when the petitioners were engaged by the department, till date the department has continued to avail their services without Court intervention. For the first time, the petitioners approached the Court in the year 2014 that is nearly nine years after their initial engagement. Pending their petitions no stay was granted against their termination. The department thus continued to extract work from the petitioners for over sixteen years since the work existed and department required the services of the petitioners to do the work. That being the position, we are firmly of the opinion that the department cannot continue to pay exploitive wages. Pending their petitions no stay was granted against their termination. The department thus continued to extract work from the petitioners for over sixteen years since the work existed and department required the services of the petitioners to do the work. That being the position, we are firmly of the opinion that the department cannot continue to pay exploitive wages. If there was no work and the need was merely temporary, the department should have terminated their services long back. Sixteen years is long enough a period to establish perennial nature of work. [9] This coupled with the fact that the petitioners’ initial entry in the service was not through backdoor, must result into their service protection. As noted, before engagement the department issued a public advertisement inviting all eligible candidates to apply. Educational qualifications commensurate with the nature of work were prescribed. It is not the case of the department that educational qualifications prescribed in the notification were different or lower than those prescribed in the service rules for regular Radiographers. A selection process of all eligible candidates was carried out pursuant to which the petitioners were selected and engaged. The learned Single Judge, therefore, was perfectly justified in asking the department to regularise the services of the petitioners. However, direction for creation of supernumerary posts would not be in consonance with the judicial trend. The petitioners can seek regularization on the vacancy on the sanctioned strength or wait till such vacancy arises. [10] In the result, by modifying the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge it is provided that the original petitioners shall be regularized on the post of Radiographer on the existing vacancies in the permanent set up, if so available. If not, against the earliest vacancies which may arise. Till this is done, the petitioners shall be paid minimum of the scale prescribed for the post of Radiographer which would include basic pay plus prevailing dearness allowance but no other allowances. Appeals are disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.