JUDGMENT : BIREN VAISHNAV, J. 1. Letters Patent Appeals No. 481, 478, 479 of 1995 have been filed by the State challenging the oral judgment dated 07/08.03.1995 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the petitions filed by the original petitioners. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1070 of 2011 has also been filed by the State challenging the oral order dated 09.03.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge who allowed the petition of the original petitioner in terms of the oral order dated 07/08.03.1995 which are a subject-matter of challenge in the other appeals. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1082 of 2001 has been filed by the original petitioner challenging the order dated 24.02.1994 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition in absence of the advocate and on merits. 2. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, they are taken up together and decided by this common judgment. 3. The original petitioners before the learned Single Judge were engaged as Clerks to carry out liquidation proceedings of the respective societies in question. It was the case of the petitioners before the learned Single Judge that the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies appointed Co-operation Officers (Liquidators) for carrying out liquidation proceedings of various societies. A circular was issued on 03.07.1986 by the Registrar, Co- operative Societies inter alia stating that liquidation proceedings initiated against the concerned societies under Section 107 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act be completed and the liquidation officers may engage persons for discharging relevant functions or duties. The District Registrars in turn appointed the petitioners as Clerks to carry out the liquidation process of the concerned co-operative society. The appointments were made on a fixed pay basis with an understanding that the salary would be paid from the funds of the society which were in liquidation. Having worked for several years as Clerks appointed by the liquidators, these petitioners approached this court by filing respective petitions. 3.1 For the purposes of brevity, the prayers made by the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 2815 of 1993 (LPA No. 481/95) are reproduced herein-below: “19. Having worked for several years as Clerks appointed by the liquidators, these petitioners approached this court by filing respective petitions. 3.1 For the purposes of brevity, the prayers made by the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 2815 of 1993 (LPA No. 481/95) are reproduced herein-below: “19. The petitioners, therefore, pray that: (a) Writ of mendemus or any other writ, direction or order in nature of mendemus may kindly be issued against the respondents directing them to recognise the petitione as the employees of the department from the date from appokntment and to extend them all the benefits that are being extended to the government employees. (b) The respondents be directed to raise the pay of the petitioners so as to be equal with that of the clerks doing the same duties in the department and; (c) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, the 3rd respondent be directed to pay petitioner No. 1 to 6 the same emoluments as being paid to the clerks in the department and 7th petitioner, the peons pay in the department. (d) Any other relief as deemed fit may kindly be granted. (e) To direct the respondents to treat the petitioners as permanent employees/workman having completed 240 days and they may further be directed to retain the petitioners in service and also to pay them the pay and allowances on the same scale as being paid to other clerks in the department and also to pay them arrears forthwith.” 3.2 The learned Single Judge by the judgment under challenge dated 07/08.03.1995 allowed the petitions giving the following directions: “1. The respondents are directed to consider the individual cases of the petitioners, frame an appropriate scheme for regularization and/or absorption of their services and post them at the places where the work is available while treating them civil servants in the appropriate grade of scales. 2. The respondents shall treat only those employees as Government employees who are appointed either by the Registrar or by the Liquidator who himself is the Government employee. It is clarified that if a Bank or a Lawyer is a Liquidator and has appointed its/his staff to carry out the work of winding up of society in Liquidation, such staff will not be treated as Government employees. 3. It is clarified that if a Bank or a Lawyer is a Liquidator and has appointed its/his staff to carry out the work of winding up of society in Liquidation, such staff will not be treated as Government employees. 3. The respondents shall formulate an appropriate scheme for regularizing and/or absorption in services of such employees, including the petitioners, in the light of observations made in this judgment within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. Till the finalization of the scheme and implementation thereof, the interim relief granted by this Court to the concerned petitioners shall continue. Rule in each of these petitions is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with costs.” 4. Ms. Manisha L Shah, learned Additional Advocate General appearing with Ms. Jeenal Acharya and Mr. Rohan Shah, learned AGPs made the following submissions: (I) That the co-operative societies against which the relief was prayed for were not ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The societies are distinct from the State. The liquidation proceedings were carried out under the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 through the Registrars. The original petitioners were engaged as Peons and Clerks by different liquidators to assist in the liquidation process. The appointments were made in line with the requirement of the liquidators and they having not being selected in accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat Non-Secretriat Clerks, Clerk Typists and Typists (Direct Recruitment Procedure) Rules, 1970 would not be said to be in employment of the State Government. The learned Single Judge could not have classified them as civil servants. (II) That the work associated with the liquidation was temporary and in fact the Registrar or the District Registrar did not possess authority to appoint such individuals on government posts as Clerks and Peons. The expenses incurred on payment of salary which was a fixed amount was to be charged to the liquidation process and was the responsibility of the society undergoing liquidation. (III) That the winding of process was to be undertaken by anybody which could include banks and it was entirely the discretion of the concerned liquidator to appoint any person as Clerk, Peon or Typist. There is no relationship of an employer- employee between the State appellant and the respondents. (III) That the winding of process was to be undertaken by anybody which could include banks and it was entirely the discretion of the concerned liquidator to appoint any person as Clerk, Peon or Typist. There is no relationship of an employer- employee between the State appellant and the respondents. She would therefore submit that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge to frame a scheme though has been complied with inasmuch as a scheme has been framed which is placed on record, the directions of the learned Single Judge are misconceived. 4.1 Ms. Shah, learned Additional Advocate General would rely on the following decisions: (i) R.N. Nanjundappa Vs. Thimmaiah T. 1972 (1) SCC 409 (ii) Kanakrai Bachubhai Joshi Vs. Junagadh District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. in LPA 1061 of 2001 in SCA 2271 of 1991 (iii) Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand & Others, 2008 (10) SCC 1 (iv) Bhatt Snehaben Maheshkumar Vs. State of Gujarat, 2010 SCC Online Guj 1827 (v) Babu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2016 SCC Online All 201 (vi) Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashwini Ray, 2017 (3) SCC 436 (vii) V.I. Khalifa Vs. Satubha Tanubhai Vaghela, 1988 SCC Online Guj 147 (viii) Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Limited and Other Vs. State of Kerala and Others, (2013) 16 SCC 82 (ix) Union of India and Others Vs. Ilmo Devi and Another, (2021) 20 SCC 290 (x) R. Muthukumar & Other Vs. Chairman And Managing Director TANGEDCO & Others, 2022 SCC Online SC 151 5. Mr. T.R. Mishra, learned advocate appears for Mr. Mehboob Qureshi-respondent in Letters Patent Appeal No. 481 of 1995. This was done in light of the order passed in the petition filed by him namely SCA No. 4093 of 1996 which was disposed of by the observations of the learned Single Judge, Para 12 of which reads as under: “12. I propose to dispose of this writ application by observing that, if ultimately the scheme is finalized, subject to the outcome of the appeals, which are pending, and if the petitioner is covered by the said scheme, then the benefit should go to him. It appears that the apprehension of termination, which was expressed by the petitioner, way back in the year 1996, was not well-founded. He has continued in service till this date and I do not see any reason why he should be discontinued all of a sudden. It appears that the apprehension of termination, which was expressed by the petitioner, way back in the year 1996, was not well-founded. He has continued in service till this date and I do not see any reason why he should be discontinued all of a sudden. Therefore, he shall continue in service on the same terms and conditions. In future, if the scheme takes shape and if the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the same, the authorities concerned shall consider his case.” 5.1 The said respondent was thereafter joined in the appeal by virtue of a Civil Application filed by him being Civil Application No. 111 of 2018. Mr. Mishra therefore would make the following submissions: 5.2 That the concerned respondent was appointed by the District Registrar on 15.12.1990 and has since been working till date. He is being paid a sum of Rs.8000/- per month. He would place reliance on a decision in the case of Daily Rated Casual Employees under P&T Department through Bharatiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch vs. Union of India and Others, (1988) 1 LLJ 370 to submit that the respondent is entitled to minimum of payscale and also entitled to absorption in accordance with the directions of the learned Single Judge. 5.3 Relying on the decision in the case of Gandaram and Ors. vs. MCD and Ors. 1988 (2) LLJ 100 , he would submit that a scheme ought to be framed as directed by the learned Single Judge and absorption benefits be given to the respondent who has been working on a fixed pay for over 34 years. He would also place reliance on the following decisions: (i) Uttar Pradesh Land Development Corporation and Another vs. Mohammad Kurshid Anwar & Ors. 2010 (7) SCC 739 (ii) Mineral Exploration Corporation Employees Union vs. Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. (iii) Pravinkumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2004 (1) LLN 129 (iv) Gujarat Maritime Board vs. Ashokkumar Ijjatrai Anjaria in Letters Patent Appeal No. 269 of 2002 (v) Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi and Ors. 2006 (4) SCC 1 (vi) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Engineering Majdoor Sangh, 2005 (2) GLH 703 (vii) Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly, 1986 (3) SCC 156 (viii) Government of India & Ors. vs. Court Liquidators Employees Association, AIR 2000 SC 405 5.4 Mr. vs. Umadevi and Ors. 2006 (4) SCC 1 (vi) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Engineering Majdoor Sangh, 2005 (2) GLH 703 (vii) Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly, 1986 (3) SCC 156 (viii) Government of India & Ors. vs. Court Liquidators Employees Association, AIR 2000 SC 405 5.4 Mr. Mishra would further submit that the respondents are entitled to the benefits of not only equal pay for equal work but to be considered as civil servants and to give the benefits as if they are government employees. 6. Written submissions have been filed on behalf of Ms. Medha Pandya, learned advocate appearing for respondents in Letters Patent Appeal No. 478 of 1995. In context of each of the respondents, she would submit that they had worked as Clerks attached to the office of the liquidator without any break and as the Division Bench had not granted any stay against the order of the learned Single Judge the benefits of the draft scheme placed on record is a mere eye wash. The respondents are not being given any retirement benefits though they have now after rendering more than 20 years of service, have retired. She would submit that the work being of perennial nature, the directions of the learned Single Judge ought to have been complied with, the respondents ought to have been treated as civil servants and be paid terminal benefits. 7. Mr. Y.N. Ravani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of original petitioners in SCA No. 3775 of 1986 would adopt the submissions made by Mr. Mishra, learned advocate and submitted that the original petitioners had prayed for regularization and despite no stay for several years now, their services were not regularised nor were they given the status of a civil servant. The respondents were continued on meagre amount of Rs.300/-. The respondents have passed the age of superannuation and no terminal benefits have been given. The scheme is merely an eye wash. 8. Mr. K.J. Vyas, learned advocate for the concerned respondents in Letters Patent Appeal No. 481 of 1995 would make similar submissions. 9. Mr. Prabhakar Upadhyay, learned advocate for respondents no. 1-6 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 481 of 1995 would submit that the concerned respondents were terminated in the year 1987 which order was subject- matter of challenge in Special Civil Application No. 6313 of 1987. 9. Mr. Prabhakar Upadhyay, learned advocate for respondents no. 1-6 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 481 of 1995 would submit that the concerned respondents were terminated in the year 1987 which order was subject- matter of challenge in Special Civil Application No. 6313 of 1987. All the respondents have reached the age of superannuation. He would submit that the appointments were made in accordance with the procedure established and therefore it cannot be said that they were back door entries. He would reiterate the submissions of Mr. Mishra, learned advocate that at best they were irregular appointments and not illegal appointments. 10. Mr. Kunal Shah, learned advocate appearing in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1070 of 2011 for the respondents would submit that the respondents were appointed in around 1980 and continued to work till the year 2019. He would reiterate the submissions made by learned counsels for the respondents. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Apex Court in the cases of Mahanadi Coal Fields vs. Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers’ Union in Civil Appeal Nos. 4092-4093/2024 and Vinod Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. SLP (C) Nos. 22241-22242 of 2016. 11. Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, in context of the prayers made in the petition, though the learned counsels for the respective parties initially wanted to argue on the question of maintainability of the petitions in support of which several decisions were relied upon by Mr. T.R. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents, we had at the outset made it clear that we were deciding the appeals on merits in context of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge without getting into the question of maintainability particularly when more than two decades have lapsed when the issue was initially raised by filing the petitions in 1983. 12. What is evident from the perusal of the appointment orders placed on record in the petitions is that the District Registrar of Co-operative Societies in order to see that the concerned society’s liquidation process is carried out in the manner in accordance with the provisions of the Act appointed such petitioners on the respective positions of Peons and Clerks. 12. What is evident from the perusal of the appointment orders placed on record in the petitions is that the District Registrar of Co-operative Societies in order to see that the concerned society’s liquidation process is carried out in the manner in accordance with the provisions of the Act appointed such petitioners on the respective positions of Peons and Clerks. The relevant portion of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the State in Special Civil Application No. 2815 of 1993 (LPA No. 481/95) reads as under: “Thus the Registrar can appoint the liquidators to do the work of winding up the societies and it is entirely at the discretation of the concerned liquidator how to do this work of winding-up i.e. to appoint the staff etc. Thus the concerned liquidator may appoint staff (Clerks) to assist him in the work of winding-up as per his requirements, depending upon the load of the work. Therefore, the staff appointed by the concerned Liquidator for his assistance and his requirement canno be said to be the staff of the Government by any stretc of imegination. Because: (i) this staff is appointed by concerned liquidator and not by the third respondent of the Government. Therefore the concerned liquidator is the appointing authority, and not the respondent no. 3 or the State Government. And as I have stated herein above once the Liquidator is given some work of the winding up the societies the Liquidator then it is for him to do that work and for him to appoint the staff clerks, etc., depending upon the load of work and the requirements. (ii) Moreover, this staff so appointed by the concerned Liquidator cannot be said to heve been appointed by the respondent no. 3 or the State Government, as they are not appointed/recruited as per any recruitment rules, which otherwise they would have been recruited as per the centralise recruitment scheme and after following the proper procedure of the recruitment like other Govt. department. (iii) Similarly neither their appointment is made on the posts sanctioned by the Government nor their salary is paid from the Government ex-chequer. department. (iii) Similarly neither their appointment is made on the posts sanctioned by the Government nor their salary is paid from the Government ex-chequer. However, I may clarify that the Registrar has been given the powers of the General Supervision and control under the Act because, these are the co-operative societies and therefore in order to keep check on the winding up proceedings and also on the liquidation expanses, the Registrar is given this power. Therefore, the interpretation sought to be convassed by the petitioners cannot be sustained by any stretch of imagination. 4. With reference to Para-1 and 2 I deny that the petitioners have been working as liquidation clerk under the third respondent. As I have stated hereinabove, they are appointed by the concerned liquidator and are working under then and therefore they cannot be said to be Govt. servant by any stretch of imagination. And as I have already dealth with the same in detail I do not repeat the same for the sake of bravity. 5. With reference to Para-3 I say that I do not offer any remarks as it pertains to their personal affairs. 6. With reference to para, 4 I say and submit that as I have stated hereinabove the liquidators are appointed U/s. 108 of the Act, and any person can be appointed as the liquidator (either the Govt. officers or some private Professionals or the Bank etc.,) I further say that as I have already stated, the Government in order to expedite the work of the liquidation as appointed some of its officers as Liquidators to do this work of liquidation exclusively. Therefore once the liquidator is appointed it is his discretation and he may appoint the staff to assist him in the work of winding-up (Liquidation work) as per his requirements. I further say that the liquidator is allowed to charge some amount for the liquidation work and that amount is debited to the accounts of the concerned society which is to be wound up and the concerned liquidator may appoint some staff as per the requirements to assist him. Thus these expenses are also not paid from the Government Ex-chequer, However in order to keep some check on this liquidation proceedings and the expenditure thereon, the Registrar the respondent no. Thus these expenses are also not paid from the Government Ex-chequer, However in order to keep some check on this liquidation proceedings and the expenditure thereon, the Registrar the respondent no. 3 herein has been given the powers of over all supervision and control by the act and the liquidators have to work under general supervision of the Registrar and they have to obtain the sanction for this expenses of the liquidation work. I further say and submit that the duties and functions enumerated herein are in fact the functions and duties of the Liquidator and not that of the petitioners. The clerical staff like the petitioner have to assist the liquidator.” 13. Therefore, what is borne out from the extract of the reply reproduced hereinabove is that the respondents can certainly not be termed as civil servants. In the case of Dayanand and Others (supra), the Apex Court was considering the issue on somewhat similar circumstances and after considering the case law on regularization as set out in various judgments referred to and relied on the aspect of legitimate expectation, the Apex Court held as under: “114. By applying the ratio of the aforementioned judgment to the facts of this case, we reiterate that the respondents cannot invoke the doctrine of legitimate expectation. At the cost of repetition, it needs to be emphasized that the respondents were employed by the Official Liquidators as additional staff pursuant to the sanction accorded by the concerned Courts. The conditions of their appointment clearly envisaged cessation of employment at the end of fixed tenure or on completion of liquidation proceedings. Of course, as it later turned out, the respondents were made to work in relation to different liquidation proceedings and for that purpose, the term of their employment/engagement was extended from time to time and they continued in service for many years in the same capacity. However, no material has been placed before this Court to show that any promise was made or any assurance was held out to the respondents by any competent authori9ty of the Government of India for their absorption in the regular cadres. 115. There is nothing in the language of Rule 308 of the 1959 Rules from which it can be inferred that those employed as additional staff in connection with the liquidation proceedings will, in future, be absorbed in the regular cadres. 115. There is nothing in the language of Rule 308 of the 1959 Rules from which it can be inferred that those employed as additional staff in connection with the liquidation proceedings will, in future, be absorbed in the regular cadres. The 1978 as also the 1999 Schemes are merely illustrative of compassionate approach adopted by the Government of India for facilitating absorption of the company paid staff against the sanctioned posts to the extent of 50% vacancies in the direct recruitment quota. These schemes cannot be read as a charter for legitimating the claim of company paid staff to be absorbed in the Government service de hors availability of vacancies, more so when the Government has taken a rational policy decision to reduce direct recruitment to various services in a phased manner. 116. In our opinion, any direction by the Court for absorption of all company paid staff would be detrimental to public interest in more than one ways. Firstly, it will compel the Government to abandon the policy decision of reducing the direct recruitment to various services. Secondly, this will be virtual abrogation of the statutory rules which envisages appointment to different cadres by direct recruitment. 117. Before parting, we consider it necessary to take cognizance of the fact that in compliance of order passed by Calcutta High Court in Writ Petition No. 211 of 2001, the Government of India created 51 posts for absorption of staff employed by the Court Liquidator. However, that cannot be made basis for granting relief to the respondents because creation of those posts was clouded by the threat of contempt, for which proceedings had been initiated by the aggrieved employees.” 14. In light of the aforesaid, the appeals are allowed. The judgment dated 07/08.03.1995 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the petitions filed by the original petitioners is hereby quashed and set aside. Since we are allowing the Letters Patent Appeals filed by the State, Letters Patent Appeal No. 1082 of 2001 is dismissed.