ORDER : 1. Since in all the aforesaid petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 19.02.2010 passed by respondent No.2- Registrar (Incharge), Guru Ghasidas University, whereby the regularization order dated 26.08.2008 of the petitioners has been declared annulled and cancelled from 22.09.2008, the same are being decided by this common order. 2. The petitioners have prayed for quashment of the order, whereby pursuant to the cancellation of order of regularization, the regular salary paid to them on the scale admissible to a regular employee, has been directed to be recovered in monthly installment. 3. Facts of the case, as projected by the petitioners in the aforesaid petitions, are that the petitioners are employees of Guru Ghasidas University (hereinafter referred to as ‘the University’). In pursuance to the Circular No. F12-1/2007/1-3, dated 05.03.2008 of the General Administrative Department, Govt. of C.G., the decision taken by the Executive Council and direction passed by the Director, Higher Education Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, vide order dated 26.08.2008, the petitioners’ services were regularized under the self finance scheme against the vacant post at regular pay scale and accordingly, the petitioners had been drawing respective regular pay scale till March, 2009. Thereafter, suddenly without passing any order or informing the petitioners and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the regular pay scale which was granted to the petitioners and similarly regularized employees was withdrawn and payments are being made at the collectorate rate of Rs.2,972/- per month. The petitioners filed writ petition bearing WP(S) No.2471/2009 and other connected matters before this Hon’ble Court challenging the same in which the notice was issued to the University. However, without contesting the case before the Hon’ble High Court, the respondent No.2-Registrar (In-charge), University, passed the impugned order dated 19.02.2010, whereby the regularization order dated 26.08.2008 of the petitioners have been declared annulled and cancelled from 22.09.2008 after the withdrawal of salary of regular employees from the petitioners, though being a regular employee, from the month of April, 2009, dehoring Section 4(d) of the Central University Ordinance, 2009, Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2009’). Hence, these petitions for the following reliefs:- (In WPS No.2953/2010) 10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the order dated 19.02.2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent No.2 – The Registrar (In-charge), Guru Ghasidas University whereby the regularization order dated 26.08.2008 of the petitioners have been declared annulled and cancelled from 22.09.2008. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the petitioners the arrears of regular pay wrongly withdrawn/deducted with interest till the date of payment. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 and 2 to grant all the benefits of regular employee to the petitioners complying the provisions of the Central Ordinance Act, 2009. 10.4 That, any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the present facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted. (In WPS No.211/2013) 10(i) To kindly quash the order of recovery dated 05.01.2013 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent Guru Ghasidas University. 10(ii) To kindly quash the order dated 19.02.2010 (Annexure P/2) issued by the Registrar Guru Ghasidas University. 10(iii) To kindly quash the office memorandum dated 16.09.2010 and resolution dated 27.04.2010 (Annexure P/3) 10(iv) To kindly direct the respondent No.2 to give full effect to the order of regularization of the petitioners dated 26.08.2008. 10(v) To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner. (In WPS No.268/2013) 10(i) To kindly quash the order of recovery dated 05.01.2013 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent Guru Ghasidas University. 10(ii) To kindly quash the order dated 19.02.2010 (Annexure P/2) issued by the Registrar Guru Ghasidas University. 10(iii) To kindly quash the office memorandum dated 16.09.2010 and resolution dated 27.04.2010 (Annexure P/3). 10(iv) To kindly direct the respondent No.2 to give full effect to the order of regularization of the petitioners dated 26.08.2008. 10(v) To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner. (In WPS No.1497/2011) 10(1) That, the order/decision passed by the respondent No.1 University on 27.04.2010 be setaside/ quashed. 10(2) That, the impugned order dated 19.02.2010 (Annexure P-12), issued by the Registrar Guru Ghasidas University, may kindly be set-aside/quashed. (In WPS No.1497/2011) 10(1) That, the order/decision passed by the respondent No.1 University on 27.04.2010 be setaside/ quashed. 10(2) That, the impugned order dated 19.02.2010 (Annexure P-12), issued by the Registrar Guru Ghasidas University, may kindly be set-aside/quashed. 10(3) That, the respondent University may kindly be directed to treat the petitioners as their regular employees by virtue of order dated 26.08.2008 and to pay the petitioners regular salary in pursuance of that order. 10(4) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case including the cost of the petition. (In WPS No.1898/2012) 10(i) To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents. 10(ii) To kindly quash the office memorandum dated 16.09.2010 and resolution dated 27.04.2010 (Annexure P/1). 10(iii) To kindly quash the order dated 19.02.2010 (Annexure P/1-A), issued by the Registrar Guru Ghasidas University. 10(iv) To kindly direct the respondent No.2 to give full effect to the order of regularization of the petitioners dated 26.08.2008. 10(v) To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner. (In WPS No.1898/2012) 10(i) To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents. 10(ii) To kindly quash the office memorandum dated 16.09.2010 and resolution dated 27.04.2010 (Annexure P/1). 10(iii) To kindly quash the order dated 19.02.2010 (Annexure P/1-A), issued by the Registrar Guru Ghasidas University. 10(iv) To kindly direct the respondent No.2 to give full effect to the order of regularization of the petitioners dated 26.08.2008. 10(v) To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner. (In WPS No.1899/2012) 10(i) To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents. 10(ii) To kindly quash the office memorandum dated 16.09.2010 and resolution dated 27.04.2010 (Annexure P/1). 10(iii) To kindly quash the order dated 19.02.2010 (Annexure P/1-A), issued by the Registrar Guru Ghasidas University. 10(iv) To kindly direct the respondent No.2 to give full effect to the order of regularization of the petitioners dated 26.08.2008. 10(v) To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner. 10(iv) To kindly direct the respondent No.2 to give full effect to the order of regularization of the petitioners dated 26.08.2008. 10(v) To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner. (In WPS No. 2954/2010) 10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the order dated 19.02.2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent No.2 – The Registrar (Incharge), Guru Ghasidas University whereby the regularization order dated 26.08.2008 of the petitioners have been declared annulled and cancelled from 22.09.2008. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the petitioners the arrears of regular pay wrongly withdrawn/deducted with interest till the date of payment. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 and 2 to grant all the benefits of regular employee to the petitioners complying the provisions of the Central Ordinance Act, 2009. 10.4 That, any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the present facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted. (In WPS No. 2955/2010) 10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the order dated 19.02.2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent No.2 – The Registrar (In-charge), Guru Ghasidas University whereby the regularization order dated 26.08.2008 of the petitioners have been declared annulled and cancelled from 22.09.2008. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the petitioners the arrears of regular pay wrongly withdrawn/deducted with interest till the date of payment. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 and 2 to grant all the benefits of regular employee to the petitioners complying the provisions of the Central Ordinance Act, 2009. 10.4 That, any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the present facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners would submit that once the regularization order of the petitioners have been issued after carrying and complying with all the prescribed formalities, the same cannot be cancelled without affording proper opportunity of hearing and if that is being done, the same would amount to clear violation of fundamental rights enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners in respective petitions are working as daily wager employees holding the Class-III, and IV posts of Lower Division Clerk/typist and peon in the University. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that in the year 2001, the Vice Chancellor of the University wrote a letter to the Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, to permit the University to create posts and appoint persons/employees under the Self Finance Scheme. The State Government granted permission with a condition that the State Government will not provide financial assistance and, accordingly, appointments were made under the self finance scheme. Thereafter, in the light of order passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 , the State Government issued a circular dated 05.03.2008 and the Executive Council, pursuant to the letter dated 05.03.2008, recommended to regularize the petitioners’ services, and the letter/order dated 22.08.2008 issued by the Additional Secretary, Directorate of Higher Education, Raipur (C.G.) to the Registrars of the Pandit Ravi Shanker Shukla University, Raipur, Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur (C.G.) and Indira Kala Sangeet University, Khairagarh (C.G.) which was approved by the Commissioner, Higher Education clearly shows that the regularization of the petitioners was done in accordance with law at the direction and approval of the State Government under the self finance or on vacant, created and approved posts of Grade-III and Grade-IV in other departments. Further submission is that on 15.01.2009, the University was upgraded from State University to the Central University in pursuance of the enactment of the Central University Act, 2009, and Section 4 (d) of the Central University Act, 2009, provides every person employed by the Guru Ghasidas University immediately before the commencement of the same shall now hold their office or service in Guru Ghasidas University established by the new Act by the same tenure at the same remuneration and upon the same terms and conditions and with the same rights and privileges to pension, leave, gratuity, provident fund and other matters as they would have held the same, if the new act has not been enacted and shall continue to do so unless and until his employment is terminated or until such tenure remuneration and terms and conditions are duly altered by statute. Learned counsel further submits that the service conditions of the petitioners cannot be changed dehoring Section 4(d) of the Act, 2009. The statutory right of the petitioners under Section 4 (d) of the Act of 2009 could not have been overridden by a resolution of the Executive Council as the resolution cannot prevail over the Act. The resolution of the Executive Council dated 13.07.2009 after the up-gradation of the Guru Ghasidas University from State University to Central University cannot be construed as statute as provided under Section 27 of the Act of 2009. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents have not shown that the resolution has been approved by the Visitor who as provided in Section 8 of the Act of 2009, is the President of India. The approval by the Visitor of any new statute is mandatory condition under Section 27 of the Act of 2009. The order dated 19.02.2010 passed in reference to Executive Council meeting dated 13.07.2009 is, therefore, against the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P. (C) No.18342- 18343/2013 (Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya Vs. Surendra Saraf. It has been also submitted that the respondent authorities have not issued any show cause notice to the petitioners before the issuance of withdrawal of salary from 01.04.2009, before the cancellation of the regularization vide order dated 19.02.2010 and further recovery of the salary. Learned counsel next submitted that till date the petitioners are working as daily wages employees in the University and there is no material placed on record by the respondents that the petitioners have been lacking any qualification or bear any blemish record during their employment for over two decades, therefore, the impugned order dated 19.02.2010 of cancellation of regularization of the petitioners is liable to be set aside and the petitioners be held entitled for monetary benefits from April, 2009 with interest and the entire period from 19.02.2010 shall be taken for continuity of service and retiral benefits. In support of their submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gajanand L. Pernekar Vs. State of Goa and Another, (1998) 8 SCC 378, A.P. Aggarwal Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another, (2000) 1 SCC 600 , decisions of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matters of Radha Mohan Goswami and Others Vs. State of Goa and Another, (1998) 8 SCC 378, A.P. Aggarwal Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another, (2000) 1 SCC 600 , decisions of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matters of Radha Mohan Goswami and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2004 (2) M.P.H.T. 49 , Subrato Bachaspati Vs. State of M.P. and Others, 2003 (1) JLJ 6 , Engineer in Chief, PH.E.D. and Others Vs. Budha Rao Magarde and Others, 2002 (1) MPLJ 385 , & Mata Prasad Sahu Vs. State of M.P. and Others, 2001 (1) JLJ 116 . 5. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents submits that the case of the petitioners are not covered under the decision of Uma Devi (supra) as in the instant case, the proper procedure was not followed while passing the regularization order. The alleged regularization order dated 26.08.2008 was issued by the Acting Vice Chancellor in violation of clear guidelines issued by various departments of State and Union, as such, the appointments made, if any, are illegal appointments. Learned Sr. counsel further submits that the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, has issued a letter dated 29.04.2008, wherein it was specifically mentioned that State authorities may please ensure that the University does not take on any new liabilities of a recurring or continuing nature nor any recruitment made therein. Similar directions were issued by the Higher Education Department of the State of Chhattisgarh directly to the Vice Chancellor of the respondent University and similar direction to not to make any appointments were also issued. The regularization of the petitioners in the present case are clearly in contravention with the aforesaid directions, therefore, are illegal regularization. The regularization order was issued without authority of law and contrary to the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions. It has been further submitted by learned Sr. counsel that the regularization order dated 26.08.2008 was issued dehors the directions issued by the MHRD and State Government & the regularization was not done in vacant sanctioned posts, therefore, the petitioners will have no right to claim regularization merely because they have worked with the institution for a specific period of time. counsel that the regularization order dated 26.08.2008 was issued dehors the directions issued by the MHRD and State Government & the regularization was not done in vacant sanctioned posts, therefore, the petitioners will have no right to claim regularization merely because they have worked with the institution for a specific period of time. Since the regularization order was illegal and not irregular, the case of the petitioners does not fall under the exception as provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 53 of Uma Devi (supra). It has been also argued that since the appointments were illegal and void ab initio, no opportunity of hearing is necessary as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions. It is clear from order dated 26.08.2008 that regularization order was subject to approval and ratification by the Executive Council of the University in its next meeting. Further, para 7 of order dated 26.08.2008 clearly speaks out that if in future the State Government takes any decision with regard to regularization, the regularization order would be modified or cancelled in accordance with the direction. The order dated 26.08.2008 was passed by the Acting Vice Chancellor and it was categorically mentioned in the appointment order dated 23.06.2008 of the Vice Chancellor that no policy decision shall be taken by the acting Vice-Chancellor and, as such, he is not entitled to make any appointments. In the present petitions, Ministry of Human Resource Development, vide its order dated 29.04.2008 (Annexure R1/1), State Government through Department of Higher Education, vide its order dated 03.06.2008 (R1/2) has taken a specific policy decision not to take any new recruitment until further orders and the regularization of the petitioners was done in clear violation of the aforesaid policy decisions as well and, therefore, the Executive Committee being the appropriate authority under the relevant Rules, passed the order cancelling the regularization. It has been also submitted that to fill up or not to fill up posts is policy decision to be taken by the Government and the Court should refrain from interfering in policy decision of the Government as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orrisa Vs. Haraprasad, (1998) 1 SCC 487 , State of Orrisa Vs. Bhikari Charan Khuntia, (2003) 10 SCC 144 . Thus, the aforesaid petitions are liable to be dismissed. Haraprasad, (1998) 1 SCC 487 , State of Orrisa Vs. Bhikari Charan Khuntia, (2003) 10 SCC 144 . Thus, the aforesaid petitions are liable to be dismissed. To buttress his submission, he would rely upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Bihar Vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad, (2019) 13 SCC 250 , Union of India Vs. All India Trade Union Congress, (2019) 5 SCC 773 , Union of India V. Raghuwar Pal Singh, (2018) 15 SCC 463 , State of J&K Vs. District Bar Association, Bandipora, (2017) 3 SCC 410 , Vice Chancelor, Lucknow University Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Khare & Anr., (2016) 1 SCC 521 , Nand Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 5 SCC 300 , State of T.N. Vs. R. Govindaswamy, (2014) 4 SCC 769 , B.T. Krishnamurthy Vs. Shree Basaveswara Education Society, (2013) 4 SCC 490 , Mohan Lal Vs. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 502 , State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Rekha Rani, (2011) 11 SCC 441 , UOI and Anr. Vs. Arulmozhi Iniarasu and ors., (2011) 7 SCC 397 , State of Rajasthan Vs. Daya Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 429 , State of Karnataka Vs. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 , Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 54 , Punjab National Bank V. Manjeet Singh, (2006) 8 SCC 647 , State of Orissa Vs. Bhikari Charan Khuntia, (2003) 10 SCC 144 and State of Orrisa Vs. Haraprasad, (1998) 1 SCC 487 . 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and carefully gone through the material available on record. 7. In the aforesaid petitions, it is an admitted position that vide order dated 26.08.2008, the services of the petitioners were regularized. So far as the question of regularization of the petitioners is concerned, as pointed out by the respondent counsel that same has been done in clear violation of rules and guidelines and without following the proper procedure specified therein, a bare reading/perusal of letter dated 22.08.2008 (Annexure P/2) filed in WPS No.2955/2010, clearly goes to show that the Additional Secretary, Directorate of Higher Education, Raipur, referring to letter No. F 12-1/2007/1-3 dated 05.03.2008 of General Administrative Department, Govt. of C.G., issued a direction to Chancellor of three Universities including the respondent University to regularize the services of the Class-III and IV employees appointed on daily wages or ad-hoc in Universities. For ready reference, the contents of letter dated 22.08.2008 is extracted herein as under :- dk;kZy; vk;qDr] mPp f'k{kk lapkyuky; 'kkldh; foKku egkfo|ky; ifjlj] jk;iqj ¼N-x-½ Øekad 510@150@vkmf'k-@fo-fo-Lfkk-@13 jk;iqj fnukad 22@08@2008 Áfr] dqylfpo] ia- jfo'kadj 'kqDy fo'ofo|ky; jk;iqj xq: ?kklhnkl fo'ofo|ky; fcykliqj bafnjk dyk laxhr fo'ofo|ky; [kSjkxढ + ¼N-x-½ fo"k;%& fo'ofo|ky;ksa esa nSfud osru ij vFkok rnFkZ :i esa fu;qDr r`rh; ,oa prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkfj;ksa dks fu;fefrdj.k ckcr~A lanHkZ%& Nrrhlxढ+ 'kklu] lkekU; Á'kklu foHkkx ¼ea=ky;½ ds i= Øekad ,Q 12&1@2007@1&3 fnukad 5 ekpZ 2008- --------------- fo"k;kUrxZr lanfHkZr i= ds fcUnq Øekad ds vuqlkj fnukad 01-01-89 ls fnukad 31-12-97 rd dh vof/k esa fu;qDr nSfud osru Hkksxh@rnFkZ fu;qDr deZpkfj;ksa dk fu;fefrdj.k djus gsrq vkns'k tkjh fd;k x;k gSA mDr vkn'kZ ds ifjikyu esa fo'ofo|ky; esa dk;Zjr bu deZpkfj;ksa dk 'kh?kz fu;fefrdj.k dh dk;Zokgh djsa rFkk dh xbZ dk;Zokgh dh tkudkjh ls v|ksgLrk{kj drkZ dks voxr djus dk d"V djsaA ¼vk;qDr mPp f'k{kk }kjk vuqeksfnr½ lgh@& vij lfpo mPp f'k{kk lapkyuky;] jk;iqj ¼N-x-½ 8. Thus, it is crystal clear that regularization of the petitioners took place/ done by the respondent University only after the letter dated 22.08.2008 of Additional Secretary, Directorate of Higher Education, Raipur, wherein it has been specifically stated to regularize the services of the Class-III and IV employees appointed on daily wages or ad-hoc in Universities. 9. Further submission of learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent-University is that clause 7 of the regularization order of the petitioners give authority to the University to cancel the regularization order of the petitioner and in furtherance of clause 7 of regularization order dated 26.08.2008, the impugned order dated 19.02.2010 cancelling the regularization of petitioners was passed. 10. The contents of Clause 7 of regularization order dated 26.08.2008 of the petitioners speaks out that “I f in future any kind of contrary decision is taken by the State Government or the Central Government or the University Executive Council on the said regularization order, then it can be partially modified or completely canceled accordingly”. 11. 10. The contents of Clause 7 of regularization order dated 26.08.2008 of the petitioners speaks out that “I f in future any kind of contrary decision is taken by the State Government or the Central Government or the University Executive Council on the said regularization order, then it can be partially modified or completely canceled accordingly”. 11. The question is whether after approval of Executive Council of University to regularize the services of the petitioners, that too, after the direction of the State Government in its letter dated 22.08.2008, only on the basis of said clause 7 in the order of regularization dated 26.08.2008, the right of the petitioners protected in view of Section 4 (d) of the Act, 2009, can be taken away. In this regard, it would be apt to refer to the order dated 18.05.2018, of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No.4296/2013 (Meenakshi Jaiswal Vs. Guru Ghasidas Central University & Ors.) and other connected matters. Paras 39 and 40 of the said order are as under :- “39. It is also worthwhile referring to the Single Bench decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Surendra Saraf Vs. Dr. Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya (ILR 2011 MP 3037) wherein paragraph 12 it has been held as under :- “12. As far as first ground is concerned under the Adhiniyam of 1973 an Executive Council is constituted under Section 23 and the powers of the Executive Council are prescribed under Section 24. The Executive Council is given wide power which includes the entire power to control and administer the property and funds of the University, the power of preparing annual-17- financial estimate of the University, powers for appointment, creation of posts, prospecting the salary etc.. There is nothing in the Adhiniyam of 1973 which warrants that a decision taken by the Executive Council has to be approved by the State Government. Except for contending in the return that the decision of the Executive Council taken on 1.5.2008 has not been approved by the State Government and therefore, cannot be given effect to, respondents are unable to demonstrate before this Court from the statutory provision i.e. Adhiniyam of 1973 or any other provision as to how and under what provision of law the resolution of the Executive Council warrants approval of the State Government. When the provision of Section 24 of the Adhiniyam of 1973 gives wide power to the Executive Council to take a decision, the decision taken by the Executive Council becomes final and applicable on the date it is taken and for the said purpose no further approval or sanction of the State Government is necessary. Once the Executive Council took a decision on 1.5.2008 for granting benefit to the petitioners, the same becomes a service condition of the petitioners and by virtue of Section 4(d) of the Act of 2009 the terms and conditions of appointment which were existing on-18-1.5.2009 i.e. prior to 20th March 2009 could not be changed. When the resolution was passed by the Executive Council of the University on 1.5.2008 it became a service condition for the petitioners and a right, legal and vested in nature accrued to the petitioner, it became the terms and condition for the contract of service condition/contract was and laid once down by the the service Executive Council of the University under the Adhiniyam of 1973 by virtue of right available to the petitioners under Section 4(d) of the Act of 2009 the service condition could not be changed. The University which came into existence after 20th March, 2009, under law was duty bound to protect the right of the petitioners which accrued to them by virtue of decision taken by the Executive Council on 1.5.2008 and therefore, in refusing to granting the aforesaid benefit, respondents have committed an error and to that effect benefit can be granted to the petitioners. ” 40. A plain reading of the aforesaid view of the Madhya Pradesh High Court forces this Court to draw the conclusion that the service conditions of each of the petitioners herein since they were appointed by the Guru Ghasidas University shall remain protected in view of section 4 (d) of the Act of 2009 unless they stand altered by the statutes.” 12. Reverting to the facts of the case, it is clear that in pursuance of the letter dated 22.08.2008 of Additional Secretary, Directorate of Higher Education, Raipur, the services of the petitioners had been regularized vide order dated 26.08.2008 on the basis of decision of Executive Council after due verification and since then the petitioners had been working as regular employee of the respondent-University. But all of a sudden, the regularization order dated 26.08.2008 of the petitioners was cancelled vide the order impugned. 13. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Meenakshi Jaiswal (WPS No.4296/2013 & other connected matters) (supra) has further observed in para 41 that “the service conditions of the petitioners stood protected in view of Section 4 (d) of the Act of 2009, right stands accrued in favour of the petitioners so far as their appointment and confirmation having been done by Guru Ghasidas University. The petitioners again need not be subjected to the process for regularization.” 14. The Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh has come across the identical matter in writ appeal being registered as Writ Appeal No.1166/2011 and other connected matter (Dr. Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar, Vs. Rajkumar and Other), wherein in para 8, it has been held as under :- “8. So far no Statute has been made as provided under Section 27 of the Act, 2009 affecting the pay and allowances of the respondents. The resolution dated 24.10.2010 cannot be construed as a Statute. The appellant has not shown that the resolution has been approved by the Visitor who, as provided in Section 8 of the Act 2009, is the President of India. The approval by the visitor of any new Statute is a mandatory condition under Section 27. In the present situation, we do not find it necessary to go into the question whether the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 or the principle of “equal pay for equal work” will apply.” 15. A bare reading of all the documents and material brought on record would show that the petitioners had been working for two decades and by virtue of letter dated 22.08.2008 of Additional Secretary, Directorate of Higher Education Department, Raipur (C.G.), the services of the petitioners were regularized vide order dated 26.08.2008 and in view of decision of co-ordinate Bench in the matter of Meenakshi (supra) and decision of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Dr. Harisingh Gour (supra) & keeping in view Section 4 (d) and 27 of the Act, 2009, the service condition of the petitioners are protected and rights stands accrued in favour of the petitioners as regards their appointments and regularization having been done by the Guru Ghasidas University. 16. Harisingh Gour (supra) & keeping in view Section 4 (d) and 27 of the Act, 2009, the service condition of the petitioners are protected and rights stands accrued in favour of the petitioners as regards their appointments and regularization having been done by the Guru Ghasidas University. 16. The impugned order is hit by provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and passing an administrative order having adverse effect on an accrued rights of the employee as contemplated in Rule 4 (d) of the Act, 2009, without giving them any opportunity of hearing, is not sustainable. 17. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 19.02.2010 being not sustainable deserves to be and is accordingly set aside. As a consequence, the petitioners would be deemed to be regular employees of the University and their regularization protected under the provision of Section 4 (d) of the Act, 2009. The petitioners shall be entitled for all the benefits as regular employee from the date of regularization of their services vide order dated 26.08.2008. 18. In the result, the aforesaid petitions stand allowed.