JUDGMENT : (Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to order bearing No.TCIL/11/001/3631/09/PER dated 15.04.2009 of the 2nd respondent and order bearing No.TCIL/11/001/3631/CS/2013/HRD dated 04.04.2014 of the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider for inclusion of the petitioner earlier service in Department of Telecommunications and regularize his service on par with the petitioner juniors/batch mate and grant all consequential benefits.) 1. The order of rejection, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for retrospective regularization of the services from the date, on which, his junior colleagues were regularized in the Telecommunication is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner states that he joined in the services of Department of Telecommunication on 24.08.1992 as Daily Rated Mazdoor (DRM). The petitioner was sent for deputation to Telecommunications Consultants India Limited (in short, 'TCIL'), on Deputation in January 1988 and he was continuously working in TCIL. The services of the writ petitioner was regularized with effect from 23.07.1997 and thereafter, the petitioner is continuing as a regular employee of TCIL and he made a representation to the authorities to regularize the services with retrospective effect from the year 1992 on par with his colleague, who continued in the Department of Telecommunication. The said representation was rejected and the writ petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.11386 of 2012 and this Court passed an order on 29.01.2014, directing the authorities to consider the case of the writ petitioner. Consequently, the authorities have passed an order impugned, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner and the appeal filed in this regard was also rejected. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the Government of India, Ministry of Communications, in letter dated 14th January 1988, issued instructions as “The casual mazdoors drafted from the Department of Telecom and serving in TCIL will, for all purposes like regularization and other benefits be treated on par with the casual mazdoors serving in the Department of Telecom.” 4. Relying on the above letter of the Department of Telecommunication, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that once the Government of India directed to grant regularization and other benefits on par with the casual Mazdoors serving in the Department of Telecommunication, the benefit of regularization is to be extended to the writ petitioner from the date on which his colleague was granted regularization in the Department. Weightage of services rendered in the Department of Telecommunication is also to be considered for the purpose of granting the benefit of regularization. 5. The petitioner though submitted proof to establish that his colleague junior was granted regularization from the year 1992, the said benefit was not extended, which is in violation of the instructions issued by the Department of Telecommunication on 14th January 1988. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents objected the said contention by stating that the said instruction was issued by the Department of Telecommunication and the petitioner was deputed to TCIL and the services of the petitioner was regularized in the TCIL establishment and not in the Department of Telecommunication establishment. TCIL has got a separate recruitment policy as it is a Public Sector company. When the recruitment policy of the TCIL contemplates certain procedures for regular appointments, the regularization cannot be granted with retrospective effect by comparing the colleague of the writ petitioner, who continued in the department of Telecommunication. Thus, the comparison made is unacceptable and therefore, the respondents rejected the representation of the writ petitioner. 7. The fact remains that the casual labourers were engaged by the Department of Telecommunication and the Government of India took a policy decision to grant the benefit of regularization and permanent absorption to his casual labourers. Pursuant to the policy decision of the Government of India in proceedings dated 03.01.1992, the temporary status mazdoors were conferred with the benefit of regularization in the time scale of pay. However, the said benefit was not immediately implemented by the TCIL and there was a delay in granting regularization to the employees, who were deputed to TCIL to continue their services. The junior to the writ petitioner though deputed initially, was relieved by the TCIL and he had gone back to the Department of Telecommunication and his services were regularized in the year 1992. The junior to the writ petitioner though deputed initially, was relieved by the TCIL and he had gone back to the Department of Telecommunication and his services were regularized in the year 1992. However, the services of the writ petitioner was regularized with effect from the year 1997 in TCIL. 8. Question arises, whether the petitioner can compare the benefit of regularization granted to some of his colleagues in the department of Telecommunication. Admittedly, the establishment of TCIL is independent and governed by a separate Service Rules. The recruitment policy of the TCIL is no way connected with the policy of the department of Telecommunication. Therefore, an independent decision was taken by the TCIL to grant the benefit of regularization with prospective effect to the casual employees. 9. The initial appointment of the casual labourers admittedly were not in accordance with the recruitment rules in force. They were engaged on temporary basis and they are not entitled for regularization. The Government of India, taking a lenient view, has granted the benefit of regularization to these casual labourers. When a decision was taken to grant the benefit of regularization by way of concession, it was extended to the establishment of the TCIL also. Therefore, the benefit of regularization and permanent absorption granted itself was a concession extended to the casual labourers and therefore, such concession cannot be further extended by the High Court alone, exercising the powers of judicial review for the purpose of retrospective regularization with monetary benefits. 10. In the matter of concession of regularization, such comparison would not arise at all. The petitioner was deputed to TCIL and continued in the services of TCIL and his services were regularized in the year 1997 and as per the policy of the TCIL and therefore, the question of comparing the regularization of the other colleagues, who continued their services in the department of Telecommunication would not arise at all. Regularization or permanent absorption can never be claimed as a matter of right. All appointments are to be made strictly in accordance with the recruitment rules in force. After the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of the Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others reported in (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1, such irregular or illegal appointments cannot be regularized. All appointments are to be made strictly in accordance with the recruitment rules in force. After the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of the Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others reported in (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1, such irregular or illegal appointments cannot be regularized. Backdoor appointments were stopped forthwith and regularization or permanent absorption are to be granted strictly in accordance with the rules in force. Before the said judgment of the Constitution Bench, various states across the Country have granted the benefit of regularization to these temporary and casual employees as one time measure and such policies were allowed to be completed by the Constitution Bench by way of one time measure and the said one time measure was permitted in Paragraph 53 of the said judgment. That being the principles settled by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, now the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot issue any direction to grant retrospective regularization of the employees, who were otherwise not appointed in accordance with the recruitment rules in force. That apart, the services of the writ petitioner was regularized in the year 1997 and in the earlier writ petition, this Court directed the authorities to consider the case of the writ petitioner and the said representation was rejected. 11. This being the factum, this Court do not find any reason to grant retrospective regularization of services, when the initial appointment of the writ petitioner was not in accordance with the recruitment rules, which was in force during the relevant point of time. 12. With these observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.