JUDGMENT : VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.:— Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present batch of writ petitions are based on identical facts and involving common point of law, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Brief facts which are required to be noted for deciding the controversy are that the petitioners were appointed on different posts viz. Chowkidar/Peon, Book Attendant, LDC, Library Assistant, Junior Accountant, Accountant, Helper, Staff Nurse, Sweeper, Rakshak, Lab Bearer, Lab Attendant, Book Lifter, Security Guard, Matron, Driver/Peon, LDC cum Computer Operator in the respondent- Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur on different dates through the placement agency/casual basis/daily wage basis. Some of the petitioners have served the respondent No. 1 in their respective capacities for a very long time. Since, the position on which the petitioners are working and the period since when they are working, have not been disputed, therefore, the individual details of the petitioners are not being mentioned in this order. The petitioners have represented to the respondents from time to time for regularization of their services on the strength of the judgments passed by this Court in the following cases:— Case No. Decided on Case Title Status SBCWP No. 8660/2011 13.12.2013 Jitendra Kumar v. Jai Narain Vyas University Allowed in favour of employee/petitioner DBSAW No. 354/2014 18.07.2014 JNV University v. Jitendra Kumar Appeal filed by respondent University was dismissed SBCWP No. 375/2015 03.08.2016 Vikrant Sharma v. Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur Allowed in favour of employee/petitioner DBSAW No. 7/2017 21.02.2017 Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur v. Vikrant Sharma Appeal filed by respondent University was dismissed SBCWP No. 13760/2015 13.12.2017 Deepak Dave v. Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur Allowed in terms of Jitendra Kumar and appointment was given on 12.01.2018. No appeal was filed by respondent University. 4. The principal argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the similarly situated persons have approached this Court by way of filing number of writ petitions and the same were allowed by this Court. No appeal was filed by respondent University. 4. The principal argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the similarly situated persons have approached this Court by way of filing number of writ petitions and the same were allowed by this Court. Learned counsel further submits that a writ petition being SBCWP No. 8660/2011 filed by similarly situated person namely Jitendra Kumar was allowed by the learned Single Bench and thereafter the respondent-University preferred Special Appeal against the order of the learned Single Bench being DBSAW No. 354/2014 (JNVU v. Jitendra Kumar), which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 18.07.2014 and thereafter, an SLP No. 30831/2014 (JNVU v. Jitendra Kumar), filed against the Division Bench judgment dated 18.7.2014 too was dismissed by the Apex Court vide judgment dated 24.11.2014. 5. Another bunch of writ petitions were allowed by the Single Bench against which respondent-University preferred Special Appeal before Division Bench of this Court led by D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 347/2019 (Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur v. Mukesh Sharma), which was dismissed vide judgment dated 13 08.2021. The respondent-University challenged the order of Division Bench by way of filing Special Leave Petitions before Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 28.03.2022, disposed of these Special Leave Petitions with a modification that the petitioners will be entitled to the actual benefits for a period prior to three years of filing of the writ petitions only. The other directions given by the Division Bench of this Court were affirmed. 6. In the present batch of writ petitions, the petitioners, have prayed that the benefits which have already been extended to similarly situated persons may also be granted to them by way of passing appropriate directions to the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners have brought to the notice of this Court two communications dated 17.05.2022 and 03.06.2022 addressed to the Joint Secretary, Higher Education, Education (Group-4) Department, State Government, Jaipur under the signatures of the Registrar, Jai Narain Vyas University, which are taken on record, whereby, permission for regularization of services of the petitioners was sought being their cases on identical footings to the persons in whose favour the writ petitions were allowed and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 8. On the strength of these two communications dated 17.05.2022 & 03.06.2022, learned counsel further submit that the respondents themselves have admitted the fact that the case of the present petitioners is not distinguishable from the persons in whose favour the writ petitions were allowed and the matter attained finality in those cases up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 9. The communication dated 17.05.2022 and 03.06.2022 were taken on record. 10. Learned counsel, therefore, pray that the writ petitions may be allowed and the services of the petitioners may be regularized on their respective posts, although, the monetary benefits may be limited to the extent of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 28.03.2022. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-University vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the petitioners are not entitled for grant of same benefits as the benefits granted in favour of similar situated persons were in gross violation of the law propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 . 12. Learned counsel further submits that since the petitioners were not appointed on any post and their engagements were only through the placement agency, therefore, they are not entitled for any service benefits, like the other regularly appointed employees in the respondent University. Healso submits that the engagement of the petitioners was dehors the rules and since their appointment was not in accordance with rules, no master and servant relationship exists between the petitioners and the University. 13. Learned counsel submits that the State Government is a necessary party in the present writ proceedings and due to non-joinder of a necessary party, the writ petitions are not maintainable. He submits that the judgment rendered by the Single Bench and the Division Bench is per incuriam as the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi, (supra) has not been followed properly. 14. It is contended that merely because a person is working for number of years, his non-regularization would not amount to unfair practice. 14. It is contended that merely because a person is working for number of years, his non-regularization would not amount to unfair practice. It is further contended by learned counsel for the respondent- University that the later judgment in the case of Jai Narain Vyas University v. Mukesh Sharma, has not been considered earlier by the larger Bench decision in the case of Uma Devi, therefore, the decision of Mukesh Sharma is per incuriam. 15. To buttress his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, (2008) 10 SCC 1 . He, therefore, submits that the writ petitions are devoid of any force and they may be dismissed. 16. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case including the pleadings made herein. 17. The undisputed facts in the present case are that the petitioners were appointed on different position through different modes i.e. casual basis, through placement agency, daily wage basis, etc., by respondent-University from time to time and they have been performing the regular nature of work without any break till date. In none of the cases of the petitioners, the engagement has been discontinued by the University till date. This Court is prima facie of the view that sufficient amount of work is available with the respondent-University which is being performed by the petitioners and, therefore, it can be termed that the petitioners are working on the posts which are having perennial nature of work. Thus, it can safely be presumed that the petitioners are working at par with the persons who have been regularly appointed by the University. 18. It is also worth noticing here that the Registrar of the University has communicated to the State Govt, vide letters dated 17.05.2022 & 03.06.2022 mentioning therein that the petitioners are similarly situated to the persons in whose favour the writ petitions have been allowed on the earlier occasions and the matter has attained finality up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 19. 19. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the cases of the petitioners are not distinguishable from the cases in which this Court has recently passed judgments in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10389/2018 (Bheru Singh v. Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur), on 23.05.2022 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2726/2019 (Suresh v. Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur), and other connected matters on 29.03.2022, the writ petitions were disposed of in presence of the learned counsel for the respondents stating that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Sharma, (supra). 20. On a pointed query being raised by the Court to the learned counsel for the respondents with respect to any difference between the set of employees who have approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petitions and the cases of those employees in whose favour the writ petitions were allowed by this Court on earlier occasions, the learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that there is no distinction between the set of employees in whose favour the matter has attained finality upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the present petitioners. 21. This Court, thus, has no hesitation to hold that the petitioners are entitled to the same relief which has been granted to the similarly situated employees of the University. Moreso, when the matter has been examined thoroughly, and the contentions which are sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the respondents have already been taken note in the earlier decisions, therefore, there is no justifiable reason for this Court to pass a different order other than the order which has been passed on the earlier occasions. 22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while disposing of the bunch of Special Leave Petitions arising out of an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in identical situation in the case of Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur v. Mukesh Sharma Etc. Etc., (2022) 1 SCR 842 has held as under: “3. By order dated 07.02.2022, this Court issued a limited notice to restrict the benefits accruing from the regularization to three years prior to filing of the writ appeals. The order dated 07.02.2022 reads as under : We have heard Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner-University at length. By order dated 07.02.2022, this Court issued a limited notice to restrict the benefits accruing from the regularization to three years prior to filing of the writ appeals. The order dated 07.02.2022 reads as under : We have heard Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner-University at length. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has directed to regularize the services of the respondents with all consequential benefits. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court granting regularization, more particularly, the concerned employees have been continued in service, may be on contractual basis, for more than 15 30 years of service. The question of law, if any, is kept open. Now, so far as the giving consequential benefits on regularization, we issue limited notice to the respondents, returnable on 14.03.2022 and to show cause why the benefit accruing from the regularization may not be restricted to the three years prior to filing of the writ petitions. Dasti, in addition, is permitted.” 4. We have heard Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant University and Dr. Vineet Kothari and Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective respondents - original writ petitioners. These writ petitions were filed in the year 2018/2019. In order to see that there is no hearvy financial burden upon the University and at the same time to strike a balance and considering the fact that the respective original writ petitioners have worked for more than 15 to 30 years, if it is ordered that the actual consequential benefits on regularization of their services are restricted to three years prior to filing of the writ petitions, while they are granted the benefit of regularization notionally and with continuity of the service from the date on which the other similarly situated employees were regularized, it will meet the ends of justice. 5. 5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned common judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and those of the learned Single Judge are hereby modified and it is ordered that the original writ petitioners shall be entitled to the actual consequential benefits on regularization for the period prior to three years of filing of the writ petitions only. However, they shall be entitled to continuity in service and benefits notionally on regularization, from the date on which the similarly situated employees were regularized. All these appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.” 23. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents to take a different view in these cases on the strength of the judgment relied upon by him in the case of Official Liquidator, (supra) is noted to be rejected on the ground that there is no distinction between the two sets of employees in whose favour the judgments have been passed and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Since in earlier decisions passed by this Court, the judgment of larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Uma Devi, (supra) has been taken note of and those decisions were assailed by way of filing Special Leave Petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same have been decided by a detailed judgment in the case of Mukesh Sharma, (supra), therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that later decisions were per incuriam is not sustainable. 23. This Court is also of the view that since the similarly situated persons have already been extended the benefit of regularization, the University should have taken up the cases of the respondents-petitioners on its own and as a model employer if a judgment has been pronounced by a Court of law, then the persons who are similarly situated and working in the organization should not be dragged in the Courts of law by not extending the same benefits as the employer is under an obligation to extend the same benefit to those persons who have not even approached the Court of law. 25. 25. The view taken by this Court in the preceding para is fortified by the observations of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in somewhat similar case titled as Vice Chancellor, Anand Agriculture University v. Kanubhai Nanubhai. Vaghela, (2021) 17 SCC 750 : AIR 2021 SC 3529 has also held as under:— 13. By an order dated 17.10.2011, persons similarly situated to the Respondents were absorbed by being given the benefit of regularization. The Division Bench of the High Court has taken note of the discriminatory approach of the university in conferring the benefit of regularization to some and not to all those daily wagers who are eligible. There is no error in the judgment of the High Court which warrants interference by this Court. Eligible daily wagers in accordance with the scheme have been eagerly awaiting regularization as per the judgment of this Court in Gujarat Agricultural University's case, (supra). The right of the Respondents for regularization has been correctly recognized by the High Court.” 26. The other arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents have elaborately been taken note of in earlier judgments and those judgments have been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, no different view is possible in the facts and circumstances of the present cases. 27. In view of the discussions made herein above, the present writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of regularization to the petitioners, keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur v. Mukesh Sharma Etc. Etc., (2022) 1 SCR 842 (supra). It is also directed that all this exercise be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Stay applications as well as other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to cost.