JUDGMENT Biswanath Rath, J. - This writ petition involves the following prayer: "That the petitioners therefore pray that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to admit the writ petition and to issue a "RULE NISI" to the Opposite Parties to show cause as to ; (i) Why the rejection order dtd.12.1.2016 vide Annexure-4 will not be quashed with direction of the O.Ps. to appoint the petitioners as Clerk-'B' trainee with prescribed scale of pay by declaring result within time stipulation or regularize the service of the petitioners by regular appointment as the petitioners have completed more than 8 years of continuous service and any other order as deem fit be passed and the exercise may be completed within stipulated period of one month. And if the Opposite Parties do not show cause then the rule be made absolute by issuing writ(s)/direction(s) and any other order as deem fit be passed. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray." 2. Sum and substance in filing the writ petition, there is challenge to order at Annexure-4 being passed by Competent Authority based on a direction of disposal of the previous writ petition, vide W.P.(C) No.17689 of 2015. Challenge to Annexure-4 is made solely on the premises that when there is a Tripartite Settlement dated 8th June, 2010, binding on all the parties, pursuant to the same and for the condition at Clause-6 therein, the petitioners have already been directed to appear in a Written Test, result of which being declared under Annexure-1 declaring all the petitioners to have qualified in the Written Test, further asking these petitioners to appear in a viva-voce test again in terms of Clause-6 of the Tripartite Settlement and allowing the petitioners to appear in the viva-voce test, if the Authorities are justified in considering the case of the petitioners for regularization taking into consideration the decision in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and Others Vrs. Umadevi (3) and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and rejecting the claim of the petitioners vide Annexure-4? Umadevi (3) and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and rejecting the claim of the petitioners vide Annexure-4? It is in the above circumstance, Sri Dora, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that there has been total non-application of mind by the Competent Authority and in spite of admitted material facts on existing of a Tripartite Settlement binding on all parties for the communication of the same vide Annexure-1 and the subsequent development allowing these petitioners to appear in viva-voce test and viva-voce test being conducted there was no scope on the part for the Competent Authority to take up the case in the light of observation in the case of Umadevi (supra). Sri Dora, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners thus prayed to set aside Annexure-4 and issuing appropriate direction. 3. Sri Lalitendu Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting opposite parties on reiteration of the plea taken in the Counter Affidavit contended that for the decision of the Hon'ble apex Court involving regularization of temporary employees, the Authority did not commit any wrong in considering the case in applying such decision. He however did not dispute to the existence of the Tripartite Settlement between the parties. There is also no denial to the fact that following the terms in Clause-6 therein conducting a Written Test involving the petitioners and also the plea in paragraph-9 of the Writ Petition that in the meantime, the viva-voce test of the successful candidates including the petitioners has already taken place in the meantime. Sri Mishra however submitted that for the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Authorities are unable to proceed in the matter of outcome in the viva- voce test. 4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds undisputedly there exists a Tripartite Settlement between the parties in the benefit of the petitioners for the nature of the settlement u/s.18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, there should not be any doubt that it is not only binding on all the parties including the employer and has a legal force again it also remains in force until and unless it is taken out by appropriate proceeding involving notice otherwise. Undisputedly, the settlement is in force. Settlement at Clause-6 reads as follows : "6. Outsourced DEO/Accts. Asst./ Off. Asst. Bill Collector: Those DEO/Accts. Asst./Off. Undisputedly, the settlement is in force. Settlement at Clause-6 reads as follows : "6. Outsourced DEO/Accts. Asst./ Off. Asst. Bill Collector: Those DEO/Accts. Asst./Off. Asst./Bill Collector who have already completed one year engagement in CESU through outside agency would be considered as Clerk-B (Trainee) and would be placed on 3 years training period. The stipend payable during the training period is given in Annexure-B. On successful completion of training period, they will be placed in Regular Pay Scale of Rs.5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs.2500/- and their basic pay will be fixed at Rs.5200/-. Before they are taken as Trainee, they are subjected to qualifying the specified test as provided in the regulation of erstwhile OSEB & viva-voce test." 5. Pleading of the respective parties and the submission also makes it clear that it is only in terms of Clause-6 in the Tripartite Settlement, the Competent Authority has already undertaken a process of Written Test involving several candidates including those petitioners and list of successful candidates involving 24 employees including petitioners positioning at Serial Nos.5, 11, 14 and 20 have been brought out. For the disclosures at Annexure-1 by declaring the result of the 24 qualifying candidates, it is also disclosed that the qualified candidates includes the petitioners shall be intimated with the date of viva-voce test for selection to the post of Clerk-B (trainee). It is at this stage paragraph-9 of the writ petition reads as follows: "9. That the petitioners humbly state that there after the petitioners were called upon to appear the vivavoce test vide letter dtd.31.10.14 and the petitioners qualified in the viva-voce test. There after the names of the petitioners found place in the final select list prepared by the authorities." 6. Reading the above, it appears there is already a viva-voce test involving the selected candidates including the petitioners and for the submission of respective counsels, result involving such vivo-voce test was already kept in sealed cover. It is, at this stage, petitioners facing remediless approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.17689 of 2015, this Court in disposal of the aforesaid Writ Petition on 01.10.2015 passed the following order, which reads as under: "W.P.(C) No.17689 of 2015 2. 01.10.2015 Herd Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners have filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the opposite party no. 01.10.2015 Herd Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners have filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the opposite party no. 1 and 2 to dispose of their representation vide Annexure-5 within a stipulated period regarding their appointment to the post of Clerk-B (Trainee). In course of hearing, Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that highlighting the grievance the petitioners have made a representation to the opposite party nos.1 and 2 vide Annexure-5 and no decision has yet been taken. In view of the aforesaid limited grievance of the petitioners, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions raised, this Court disposes of the writ petition directing opposite party no.1 and 2 to dispose of the representation stated to have been filed by the petitioners vide Annexure-5 within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. Requisites for communication of the order to opposite party nos.1 and 2 shall be filed within a week. Issue urgent copy as per rules." 7. For the aforesaid direction and keeping in view the development through the Tripartite Settlement as well as the development through Annexure-1 allowing the petitioners to participate in a Written Test finding them qualified in such Written Test further they have been called upon to attend the viva-voce test and such viva-voce test has not only been conducted but result thereof has also been kept in sealed cover. This Court is unable to appreciate the application of Umadevi (supra) to the case of the petitioners and rejecting their case thereby. It is for the aforesaid development up till allowing the petitioners to attend the viva-voce test and after holding the viva-voce test in terms of the settlement at Clause-6 of the Tripartite Settlement involved herein, it is open to the Competent Authority to declare the result of the petitioners in the vivavoce test and dependant on their merit in the viva-voce test vis-a-vis the interview altogether. Action as appropriate for regularization should have been taken only in terms of Tripartite Settlement. Action as appropriate for regularization should have been taken only in terms of Tripartite Settlement. It is in this view of the matter and for wrong application of Umadevi (supra) to the case of the petitioners, this Court finds the impugned order at Annexure-4 is a mechanical and illegal disposal one and it is in this view of the matter this Court sets aside the order at Annexure-4 and while allowing the Writ Petition directs the Competent Authority, the contesting opposite parties or substituted owner in the meantime if any to open the sealed cover involving the petitioners, in the viva-voce test dependant on the outcome in the viva-voce test take decision in the matter of interview involving the petitioners on the aspect of their regularization in the post of Clerk-B (trainee) by undertaking the complete exercise within a period of one and half months from the date of communication of the order by either party. 8. This Court keeping in view the unnecessary delay in declaring the result of the petitioners in the viva- voce test and the suffering to each of the petitioners for almost seven years for no lawful impediment and no fault with the petitioners in the declaration of their result, also observes in the event the petitioners are found suitable in the viva-voce test and ultimately qualifies in the interview each of the successful candidates shall be deemed to be regularized at least with effect from one month after holding of the viva-voce test. So far as the arrear salary involving Clerk-B (trainee) is concerned, the Authority while considering their regularizations from the period indicated hereinabove may treat the period in between as notional but however they shall be entitled to regular scale of ClerkB (trainee) from the date their results in viva-voce test are declared. For the Writ Petition succeeds, the petitioners will also be entitled to any other benefit given to similarly situated persons in view of their regularization. 9. With this direction, the writ petition stands succeeds. However there is no order as to costs.