ORDER : The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for a direction by issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus for grant of terminal benefits payable on her retirement on attaining the age superannuation, after having completed 25 years of service in the Government. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings are that on 23.03.1982 certain proceedings were initiated by the Taluk Development Board, Sindhanur, Raichur District for appointment of a qualified person to the post of Conductress. Pursuant to the said proceedings, the petitioner was selected to be appointed and was also appointed on 18.05.1982 against a clear vacancy on temporary basis with a pay scale of Rs.280-500 with all other allowances admissible to the petitioner. Subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner, the proceedings were approved by the Chief Executive Officer of the Taluk Development Board Sindhanur as was required by law. It transpires that the petitioner was deputed to work at the Taluk Panchayat office on its formation right from 1987 and was later shifted to Social Welfare Department. After working with the Taluk Development Board, Zilla Panchayat and the Social Welfare Department on the strength of the aforesaid appointment, the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation which was 58 years at that point in time on 31.01.2007. 3. By the time the petitioner retired from service, she had completed 25 years of service, which according to the petitioner was regular in the light of the petitioner being appointed pursuant to proceedings drawn up by the Taluk Development Board and its approval by the competent authority. The appointment was against an existing vacancy with a particular pay scale and allowances applicable and being granted to the petitioner. 4. It is also the case of the petitioner that she was appointed in terms of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules. After the petitioner retiring on attaining the age of superannuation, no terminal benefits were paid, which drove the petitioner to penury. On not being paid, any terminal benefit pursuant to her retirement on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner submitted plethora of representations to the authorities seeking such payment of pension and other terminal benefits, that not being paid has led the petitioner to knock the doors of this Court in the present petition. 5. On not being paid, any terminal benefit pursuant to her retirement on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner submitted plethora of representations to the authorities seeking such payment of pension and other terminal benefits, that not being paid has led the petitioner to knock the doors of this Court in the present petition. 5. Heard Sri Deepak V. Barad, learned counsel for Sri Chaitanyakumar C.M., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shivakumar R. Tengli, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner though has rendered 25 years of service against sanctioned vacancy she is not paid any pension on the ground that her services were never regularized during the lifetime. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would in unison contend that the petitioner is not entitled to any terminal benefits as she entered service as daily wage employee, retired as daily wage employee and therefore no terminal benefits can be paid to the her. 8. Facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was appointed on 18.05.1982 against an existing vacancy in terms of the rules obtaining at the relevant point in time and the appointment was pursuant to resolution/proceedings of the Taluka Development Board on 23.03.1982. The Pay scale of Rs.280-500 with admissible allowances was also granted to the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the case of the petitioner was sought to be considered for regularization of her service for which the respondents had sought all records from the hands of the Taluka Development Board for such consideration. But before any decision could be taken on the records that were summoned, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years. 9. It is also germane to notice that after the retirement of the petitioner, the Town Municipal Council recommended the case of the petitioner on 07.11.2008 for regularization of her services on account of the petitioner retiring on 31.01.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation without being regularized. To this recommendation of the petitioner seeking regularization of her services was enclosed, both of which were placed for consideration at the hands of the competent authority. 10. To this recommendation of the petitioner seeking regularization of her services was enclosed, both of which were placed for consideration at the hands of the competent authority. 10. As the Government always sticks to its wont of not accepting to such request, did not accede to the request of the petitioner but directed submission of records along with service certificate of the petitioner. After this correspondence between the Government and the Town Municipal Council in the year 2008, nothing has happened even as on date. 13 years have lapsed after the said communication but no order is passed either granting regularization or denying it which undoubtedly, left the petitioner condemned by penury due to impecuniosities as she was not given even a penny after her retirement. 11. The justification of the learned counsel appearing for the State is that such requests cannot be considered in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 which was rendered on 10.04.2006. This submission of the learned counsel appearing for the State is unacceptable as by the time the judgment in the case of Umadevi was rendered by the Apex Court, the petitioner had completed more than 10 years of service. 12. The service of the petitioner cannot be considered to be illegal for the factor that though the petitioner’s appointment was purely on temporary basis, she was appointed pursuant to proceedings of the Taluk Development Board and was approved by the Chief Executive Officer of the Board; she was given a pay scale of Rs.280-500 which was also revised on 21.04.1988 by granting her pay scale of Rs.810-1310; the pay scale and allowances of the petitioner were revised from time to time till her retirement; her continuous employment for 25 years was not with the support of any interim order being granted by any judicial fora. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner with the aforesaid factors cannot be termed to be illegal but at best irregular. The Apex Court in the case of Umadevi had directed the State Government to consider the appointments which are irregular to be regularized if the employees had completed 10 years of service, as on the date of pronouncement of the judgment i.e., 10.04.2006. 13. The Apex Court in the case of Umadevi had directed the State Government to consider the appointments which are irregular to be regularized if the employees had completed 10 years of service, as on the date of pronouncement of the judgment i.e., 10.04.2006. 13. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had long before the judgment rendered in the case of Umadevi completed 10 years of service. There was no order passed with regard to regularization of the petitioner, though representations were given by the petitioner, without considering the same the petitioner was directed to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2007 which is admittedly after 10.04.2006-on which day the judgment of the Apex Court in Umadevi was rendered. Therefore, the plea that the petitioner is not entitled to any penny on her retirement displays arbitrary and discriminatory treatment meted out to an employee who had rendered continuous service of about 25 years to the State. 14. In the light of vehement submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the State taking support from the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Umadevi it has become necessary to consider the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the aftermath of Umadevi. The Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and others v. Kamal Prasad and others reported in (2014) 7 SCC 223 at paragraphs-30.1 to 31 held as follows: “30.1. (i) Whether the services of the respondent employees should have been considered for regularisation by the State Government even though in the first instance they did not obtain selection through the Public Service Commission and on the 2nd occasion they did not participate in the selection process? 30.2. (ii) Whether, they were entitled to claim regularisation based only on the fact they had worked for more than 10 years of service continuously with the appellants? 31. He further submits that the High Court, considering the law declared in Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] at para 53 and also keeping in view the justice and good conscience, has granted the relief to the respondent employees. The same cannot be termed either as erroneous or error in law. The same cannot be termed either as erroneous or error in law. Further, it is contended that the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand has rightly rejected the contentions urged by the Advocate General to the effect that the persons who are appointed on ad hoc/temporary basis had an opportunity to get another appointment in regular selection and they failed to participate in the selection process, therefore the same would not be a ground for the appellants to refuse regularisation of service of the respondent employees, even after they have not availed such opportunity. The employer State Government did not choose to dispense with their services though there is no restraint order from the court. In the cases in hand, both the Government of State of Bihar and Jharkhand have continued the service of all the respondent employees for 10 or more years even after they failed to get appointed to the posts on a regular basis. Therefore, the principle laid down in Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] would squarely apply in the case in hand in support of the respondent employees. The submission made by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellants that the regularisation of the respondent employees in their service would deprive the other eligible persons from employment is wholly untenable in law as the same would constitute not only discrimination but also deprivation of their livelihood, which is not legally permissible in law. The question is whether the appellants can terminate the services of the present employees who have served for more than 10 to 30 years, thereby rendering injustice to the eligible people. Therefore, in any event, it is doubtful whether the employer, more particularly the State can raise such a plea to deny employment to the employees and whether the law can be interpreted in a manner so as to give all benefits to the wrongdoers. The appointments were given to a large number of engineers by the State Government of Bihar consciously and there is no allegation of unfairness in their appointment which can be said to be tainted or as a result of any nepotism. The appointments were given to a large number of engineers by the State Government of Bihar consciously and there is no allegation of unfairness in their appointment which can be said to be tainted or as a result of any nepotism. The error of the State Government of either Bihar or Jharkhand would not justify to throw away the respondent employees by making them unemployed who have been well settled in their life since the same would amount to a clear case of discrimination and deprivation of their livelihood. Further, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly held that there is duty cast upon the State Government of Jharkhand to consider the claim of the respondent employees as one-time regularisation of ad hoc/temporary employees in their posts.” 15. The aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court clearly directed consideration of the claim of employees working on contract basis for more than 10 years continuously for regularization of their services. This was rendered after considering paragraph-53 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Umadevi. Later the Apex Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and others v. State of Jharkhand and others reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238 at paragraphs7 and 8 held as follows:- “7. The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] was therefore twofold, namely, to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is precisely what Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] and Kesari [State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] sought to avoid. 8. If a strict and literal interpretation, forgetting the spirit of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753], is to be taken into consideration then no irregularly appointed employee of the State of Jharkhand could ever be regularised since that State came into existence only on 15-11-2000 and the cut-off date was fixed as 10-4-2006. In other words, in this manner the pernicious practice of indefinitely continuing irregularly appointed employees would be perpetuated contrary to the intent of the Constitution Bench.” (Emphasis supplied) 16. The Apex Court further in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2018) 13 SCC 432 categorically held that such form of extracting work and not regularizing the employees would be a form of exploitation from the hands of the State, the Apex Court at paragraph-7 has held as follows: “7. When we consider the prevailing scenario, it is painful to note that the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] has not been properly understood and rather wrongly applied by various State Governments. We have called for the data in the instant case to ensure as to how many employees were working on contract basis or ad hoc basis or daily-wage basis in different State departments. We can take judicial notice that widely aforesaid practice is being continued. Though this Court has emphasised that incumbents should be appointed on regular basis as per rules but new devise of making appointment on contract basis has been adopted, employment is offered on daily-wage basis, etc. in exploitative forms. This situation was not envisaged by Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753]. in exploitative forms. This situation was not envisaged by Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753]. The prime intendment of the decision was that the employment process should be by fair means and not by back door entry and in the available pay scale. That spirit of the Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] has been ignored and conveniently overlooked by various State Governments/authorities. We regretfully make the observation that Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] has not been implemented in its true spirit and has not been followed in its pith and substance. It is being used only as a tool for not regularising the services of incumbents. They are being continued in service without payment of due salary for which they are entitled on the basis of Articles 14, 16 read with Article 34(1)(d) of the Constitution of India as if they have no constitutional protection as envisaged in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India [D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145 : AIR 1983 SC 130 ], from cradle to grave. In heydays of life they are serving on exploitative terms with no guarantee of livelihood to be continued and in old age they are going to be destituted, there being no provision for pension, retiral benefits, etc. There is clear contravention of constitutional provisions and aspiration of downtrodden class. They do have equal rights and to make them equals they require protection and cannot be dealt with arbitrarily. The kind of treatment meted out is not only bad but equally unconstitutional and is denial of rights. We have to strike a balance to really implement the ideology of Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753]. Thus, the time has come to stop the situation where Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] can be permitted to be flouted, whereas, this Court has interdicted such employment way back in the year 2006. Thus, the time has come to stop the situation where Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] can be permitted to be flouted, whereas, this Court has interdicted such employment way back in the year 2006. The employment cannot be on exploitative terms, whereas Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] laid down that there should not be back door entry and every post should be filled by regular employment, but a new device has been adopted for making appointment on payment of paltry system on contract/ad hoc basis or otherwise. This kind of action is not permissible when we consider the pith and substance of true spirit in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753].” (Emphasis supplied) 17. The Apex Court in the judgments supra has held that it would be nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularization. In the latest judgment, the Apex Court, in the case of teachers, in the case of Chander Mohan Negi and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others reported in (2020) 5 SCC 732 at paragraph-13 held as follows: “13. It is true that in the initial schemes notified by the Government, there was a condition that such appointees should not seek regularisation/absorption but at the same time for no fault of them, they cannot be denied regularisation/ absorption. It is in view of the requirement of the State, their services were extended from time to time and now all the appointees have completed more than 15 years of service. For majority of the appointed Teachers under the various schemes, benefit was already extended and some left over candidates were denied on account of interim orders passed by this Court. With regard to Primary Assistant Teachers, it is stated that all the candidates have completed Special Teacher Training Qualifying Condensed Course and also had obtained special JBT certificate after 5 years' continuous service in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Education Code, 1985. With regard to Primary Assistant Teachers, it is stated that all the candidates have completed Special Teacher Training Qualifying Condensed Course and also had obtained special JBT certificate after 5 years' continuous service in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Education Code, 1985. The judgments relied on by learned counsel Shri Prashant Bhushan also would not render any assistance to the case of the appellants herein for the reason that there was unexplained and inordinate delay on the part of the appellants in approaching the High Court and further having regard to explanation offered by the State about the need of framing such policies to meet the immediate requirement to fill up single teacher schools which were vacant for a very long time, having regard to topographical conditions, which is not even controverted by way of any rejoinder before the High Court. In such view of the matter, taking the totality of peculiar circumstances of these cases, we are of the view that the view expressed by this Court in the judgments relied on cannot be applied to the facts of the case on hand. All the appointed candidates are working for the meager salaries pursuant to schemes notified by the Government. Except the vague submission that such schemes were framed only to make backdoor entries, there is no material placed on record to buttress such submission. Further it is also to be noted that though such schemes were notified as early as in 2003, nobody has questioned such policies and appointments up to 2012 and 2013. The writ petition i.e. CWP No. 3303 of 2012-A was filed in the year 2012 without even impleading the appointees as party respondents. In the writ petition, there was no rejoinder filed by the writ petitioners disputing the averments of the State as stated in the reply-affidavit. Having regard to the nature of such appointments, appointments made as per policies cannot be termed as illegal. In the writ petition, there was no rejoinder filed by the writ petitioners disputing the averments of the State as stated in the reply-affidavit. Having regard to the nature of such appointments, appointments made as per policies cannot be termed as illegal. Having regard to material placed before this Court and having regard to reasons recorded in the impugned order [Pankaj Kumar v. State of H.P., 2014 SCC OnLine HP 5944] by the High Court, we are of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment [Pankaj Kumar v. State of H.P., 2014 SCC OnLine HP 5944] of the High Court.” (Emphasis supplied) In the afore-extracted judgment the Apex Court directed regularization of teachers though they were appointed with a condition that they would not be regularized, after considering all the judgments rendered by the Apex Court on the issue. 18. The judgments of the Apex Court rendered as extracted hereinabove would lead to an unmistakable conclusion that the line of judicial thought rendered in the aftermath of Umadevi is towards regularization of employees engaged to work for the State for long years failing which the Apex Court has clearly held would amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The facts obtaining in the case at hand, as narrated hereinabove, would also lead to an unmistakable analysis and conclusion that the petitioner was entitled for regularization of her services but was not done even after taking her service for 25 years by the State Government while regularizing scores of people, similarly situated in terms the judgment of Umadevi. 19. Now, what remains is the direction that is to be issued in the light of the facts and judgments rendered by the Apex Court as extracted hereinabove. This court need not be detained for long in the light of the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Central Administrative Tribunal and others reported in (2019) 4 SCC 290 wherein at paragraphs-17, 23 and 24 it is held as follows:- “17. This court need not be detained for long in the light of the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Central Administrative Tribunal and others reported in (2019) 4 SCC 290 wherein at paragraphs-17, 23 and 24 it is held as follows:- “17. Following the logic of the two decisions of this Court which have been noted earlier, we are of the view that the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] cannot be used as a charter to discriminate between similarly placed employees, once the Union of India in fact takes a decision to regularise the individuals borne on a seniority list. This decision, as we have already noted earlier, was taken in pursuance of the judgment of the Tribunal and of the High Court both of which were rendered before the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753]. ………… 23. In this background, the issue which now arises before this Court is in regard to the effective direction which would govern the present case. The High Court has directed the Union of India to absorb the casual workmen, if it is not possible at the Institute in question, then in any other establishment. The latter part of the direction, as we have already noted, cannot be sustained. Equally, in our opinion, the authorities cannot be heard to throw their hands in despair by submitting that there are no vacancies and that it had already regularised such of the persons in the seniority list, who reported for work. The Tribunal has entered a finding of fact that this defence is clearly not borne out of the record. Accordingly, we are of the view that having decided to implement the decision of the Tribunal, which was affirmed by the High Court, the Union of India must follow a rational principle and abide strictly by the seniority list in proceeding to regularise the workmen concerned. 24. Accordingly, we are of the view that having decided to implement the decision of the Tribunal, which was affirmed by the High Court, the Union of India must follow a rational principle and abide strictly by the seniority list in proceeding to regularise the workmen concerned. 24. Accordingly, we direct that the case for regularisation shall be considered strictly in accordance with the seniority list in pursuance of the directions which were issued by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court and such of the persons, who are available for regularisation on the basis of vacancies existing at present, shall be considered in accordance with law. The Tribunal has denied back wages but has ordered a notional fixation of pay and allowances. While affirming that direction, we also direct that persons who have crossed the age of superannuation will be entitled to the computation and payment of their retiral dues on that basis. This exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months from the receipt of a copy of the judgment. If it becomes necessary to grant age relaxation to the workmen concerned, the appellants shall do so.” (Emphasis supplied) In the judgment extracted hereinabove the Apex Court has considered all the judgments rendered in the aftermath of the Umadevi. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of the case, considering the service of the petitioner rendered between 1982 and 2007 for 25 long years uninterruptedly without any intervention of any judicial fora, the action of the State in not paying the petitioner even a penny on her retirement would not behove the status of the respondent being a model employer. Therefore, the State shall regularize the services of the petitioner, pay her terminal benefits after fixing the pay scale to the petitioner for the services rendered by her for twenty five years and grant her fruits of regularization failing which the action of the State in extracting employment from the petitioner, not considering her case for regularization and retiring her without a penny would amount to exploitation of human labour at the hands of the State which can never be countenanced, but at the same time, the State cannot now be mulcted with payment of backwages. The service rendered by the petitioner for 25 years after completion of 10 years of her initial appointment i.e., from 22.03.1992 shall be taken as regular service and terminal benefits be calculated and paid to the petitioner on corresponding pay - scales of regular employees. It is made clear that the petitioner would not be entitled to any arrears of salary. ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. Mandamus is issued to the respondent/State to regularize the services of the petitioner bearing in mind the observations made in the course of this order and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. iii. The petitioner shall be entitled to consequential benefits only from 22.03.1992-the day on which she completed 10 years of service except arrears of salary. The terminal benefits of the petitioner shall be calculated on the basis of the applicable pay-scale to similarly situated employees. iv. The petitioner shall be entitled to payment of terminal benefits/pension w.e.f., from the date of her retirement on 31.01.2007. v. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out by the respondent/State within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.