ORDER : R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. Upon being apprised of the conflicting opinions expressed by the Division Benches of this court, a learned Single Judge has referred the issue relating to the operation of G.O.Ms.No.74, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 27.06.2013 to a Larger Bench and hence the matter is before us. 2. The factual matrix: Pursuant to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi and others, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 , the State of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006 directing regularisation of all temporary employees, who had completed ten years of service as on 01.01.2006. The said Government order is extracted for convenience. IMAGE The said Government Order did not make any difference between those, who have been appointed through Employment Exchanges and others or between Part-Time and Full-Time Employees. Several claims for regularisation were made under the said Government Order and some cases reached this court also. Nearly after eight years, on 27.06.2013 the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013 which in effect restricted the operation of G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006 to certain categories of temporary employees only. This led to a spate of rejections of requests for regularisation which in turn led to several Writ petitions being filed in this court and some of them reached the Hon’ble Supreme Court also. 3. The bone of contention in all these matters was the scope or the operation of G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013. The said Government Order itself provided that it shall be deemed to have come into force with retrospective effect from 01.01.2006. One of the main grounds of challenge to the said Government order was that it purports to take away a vested right and therefore, it cannot operate retrospectively. Yet another question that arose was the mode of recruitment of the temporary employees. G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006 did not make any distinction between a temporary employee sponsored by an Employment Exchange and others. However, G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013 sought to restrict the benefit of regularisation only to those, who have been employed through Employment Exchanges. Several orders were passed by the Hon’ble Single Judges as well as the Division Benches in matters relating to the interpretation of G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013 and the scope of the said Government order. It is in this factual background the order of reference came to be made. Several orders were passed by the Hon’ble Single Judges as well as the Division Benches in matters relating to the interpretation of G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013 and the scope of the said Government order. It is in this factual background the order of reference came to be made. Precedents:- 4. The order of reference itself refers to at least five different judgments of the Division Benches of this court, wherein the scope and ambit of G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013 was the subject matter. The earliest judgment that has been referred to is a judgment of a Division Bench in WA No.493 of 2016, wherein the contention of the Government, that the respondents in the said Writ Appeal were not entitled to regularisation, based on G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013 was rejected by this court on the ground that the said Government Order came to be passed nearly a year after orders were passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petition directing regularisation of the respondents therein. 5. Another Division Bench of this court in WA (MD) No.686 of 2017 had directed regularisation of the services of the respondent therein, even though he had not completed 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006 on the ground that similarly placed persons were regularised. The Division Bench, however, did not even make a reference to G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013 and it is not seen from the order that the said Government Order was brought to the notice of the Division Bench when it disposed of the Writ Appeal. 6. In WA No. 1133 of 2014 which is decided on 29.06.2018 to which one of us (Hon’ble Mr.Justice R.Subramanian) was a party, the question of regularisation again cropped up and the contention of the appellants/Government based on G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013 was rejected on the ground that a very same issue was considered by a Division Bench of this court in WA No.273 of 2016 and the contention of the learned Government pleader based on G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013 was rejected. The Division Bench, noticing the fact that the Special Leave Petition filed by the State challenging the judgment in Writ Appeal No.273 of 2016 was also dismissed, did not choose to go into the matter in great detail. The Division Bench, noticing the fact that the Special Leave Petition filed by the State challenging the judgment in Writ Appeal No.273 of 2016 was also dismissed, did not choose to go into the matter in great detail. The Writ Appeal was dismissed on the ground that similarly placed persons have been regularised by an order of this Court and such order has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. The issue again cropped up before another Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.2875 and 2644 of 2018 etc., wherein the challenge was to the order of the learned Single Judge quashing Clause 6 of G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013. The Division Bench after considering the scope and ambit of G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013 held that it was open to the Government to alter the policy, as regularisation is a policy decision of the Government, and no one has got a vested right to seek regularisation. 8. The Division Bench also considered the matter in great detail and after referring to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balco Employees’ Union v. Union of India and others, reported in 2002 (2) SCC 333 ; and Union of India and Others vs. Hindustan Development Corporation and Others, reported in 1993 (3) SCC 499 , concluded that no one has a vested right for regularisation as their initial appointment itself was not legal. The Division Bench also held that it was open to the Government to change its policy. It also found that the change in policy did not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or irrationality, so as to render it void. On Such conclusions, the Division Bench held that Clause 6 of the Government order is valid. The very same issue was again considered by another Division Bench of this court in WA. (MD) No.836 and 837 of 2014, by a judgment dated 05.07.2023, the Division Bench after referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary to Govt., School Education Department. Chennai vs.R.Govindaswamy and others, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 769 , held that G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013 would apply retrospectively and if the employee does not satisfy the requirements of paragraph 6 of G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013, he/she would not be entitled to the benefit of regularisation. 9. Chennai vs.R.Govindaswamy and others, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 769 , held that G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013 would apply retrospectively and if the employee does not satisfy the requirements of paragraph 6 of G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013, he/she would not be entitled to the benefit of regularisation. 9. Apart from these judgments there are several other cases where the issue cropped up again and again and depending on the facts and circumstances of the case the benefit of regularisation was granted or refused to various employees. Some of the judgments have been taken up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Special Leave Petitions have been dismissed. But the core issue that would arise is as to whether G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013 would be applied retrospectively, so as to take away the vested rights that had accrued to the employees in terms of G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006. Though the order of reference does not specifically frame any points for determination, there is sufficient indication in the order of reference itself, as to the nature of controversy that is referred to us. Para 6 of the order of reference reads as follows: “6. In view of the conflicting views expressed by the coordinate Division Benches of this Court, this Court is of the view that an authoritative pronouncement by a larger Bench is required to answer the issue involved in this matter as to whether the part-time employees are entitled to regularisation as per G.O.(Ms.) No.74, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated or whether the said Government Order will be applicable only prospectively.” The Issue: 10. The question that arises is as to whether G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013 could have been made retrospective with effect from 01.01.2006. Regularisation of temporary employees is essentially a policy decision of the State Government and we will have to concede the power of the State Government to either amend or take a relook at the policy subject to the qualification that such amendment or reconsideration should not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or irrationality or malice. Needless to point out that such amendment are reconsideration cannot and will not take away the right that had already vested in the employee. 11. The entire exercise of regularisation became necessary, pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka& others vs. Umadevi and others, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 . Needless to point out that such amendment are reconsideration cannot and will not take away the right that had already vested in the employee. 11. The entire exercise of regularisation became necessary, pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka& others vs. Umadevi and others, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 . While considering the question of regularisation of employees and background in which such temporary appointments were made, the Hon’ble Supreme Court strongly denounced the practice of the State Governments in making temporary appointments and resorting to regularisation, after sometime, thereby denying the opportunity to the person in the queue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court however, made an exception in para 53 of the said judgment and required the Union of India and the State Governments to take steps to regularise, as a onetime measure, the services of such irregularly appointed persons, who have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned posts. Care was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to exclude those who continued to be employed under orders of court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also laid time lines for commencing the process of regularisation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also excluded those regularisations which had already been done and which were not Subjudice. 12. Apparently, G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006 was issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu in compliance with the directions contained in paragraph 53 of the judgment in Umadevi. We must at once point out that the awed object, namely, to prevent the government of the day from exploiting citizens by employing them on a temporary basis at a very meagre salary and dispensing with their services subsequently and again going in for such temporary recruitment has not been achieved. Even today, we come across cases where temporary appointments have become the norm. There are cases where even teaching staff in Universities are appointed on a temporary basis under a disguised designation of ‘Guest Lectures’. Even in schools both Government and Aided, we find that the teachers and other employees are appointed through the Parent Teachers Association on a temporary basis, even to take regular classes. There are cases where even teaching staff in Universities are appointed on a temporary basis under a disguised designation of ‘Guest Lectures’. Even in schools both Government and Aided, we find that the teachers and other employees are appointed through the Parent Teachers Association on a temporary basis, even to take regular classes. Though the Hon’ble Supreme Court has frowned upon such actions on several occasions and a Division Bench of this Court has even observed that engaging persons on temporary basis even in posts of permanent nature amounts to slavery in Writ Appeal No.536 of 2022 decided on 30.06.2022, the practice has not come to an end. 13. We had by our order dated 18.12.2023 required the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu to file an affidavit disclosing the number of part-time temporary employees employed on Daily Wage Basis/ Contract Basis / on Consolidated salary in all Departments of the State Government, including all local bodies by 21.12.2023. 14. An affidavit has been filed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu stating that there are several welfare schemes which are being implemented by various Departments of the Government, wherein persons are engaged on a temporary basis, since engaging Government servants on a permanent basis would not be appropriate. While expressing inability to provide the complete particulars due to paucity of time, the Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu has provided certain basic figures regarding the quantum of the daily wages and consolidated pay paid during the period from April 2023 to December 2023 from the Integrated Financial and Human Resources Management System (IFHRMS), a web portal of the Government of Tamil Nadu. The particulars disclose a sum of Rs.15,24,98,372/- has been paid as daily wages and a sum of Rs.776,09,46,000/- has been paid as consolidated pay during the said period. These figures establish that the Government and its arms are continuing with the practice of engaging persons on daily wages and on consolidated pay. 15. We are also informed that some of the orders of the Division Benches of this court, which directed regularisation of temporary employees dehors G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013, were appealed against and the Appeals were dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, some of the orders were left to become final without challenge. 15. We are also informed that some of the orders of the Division Benches of this court, which directed regularisation of temporary employees dehors G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013, were appealed against and the Appeals were dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, some of the orders were left to become final without challenge. Be that as it may, we will have to decide the reference independent of the absence of challenge to some of the orders. 16. We have heard Ms. Dakshayani Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.C.Mahendran for the petitioner and Mr.S.Silambanan learned Additional Advocate General assisted by MR.P.Muthukumar, learned Government Pleader and Mr.B.Ravichander, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 17. Ms. Dakshayani Reddy learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013 can only be prospective and it cannot take away the right that was vested in the employee by G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006. The learned Senior Counsel would rely upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in WA No.273 of 2016, wherein the Division Bench rejected the contention of the Government based on G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013 on the ground that it was issued much later and the benefits that were conferred on the daily wage employees under G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006 cannot be reopened. The learned Senior Counsel would also invite our attention to the judgment in Writ Appeal No.1133 of 2014, where the judgment in Writ Appeal No.273 of 2016 was merely followed and the Writ Appeal was dismissed on the ground that challenge to the judgment inWrit Appeal No.273 of 2016 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court had failed. 18. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Chief Educational Officer and others v. K.Perumal, reported in 2018 SCC Online Mad 10093, wherein this Court had taken note of the nature of the employment to conclude that if the nature of the employment is permanent, then the Government cannot take shelter under the fact that the incumbent was appointed as a part-time employee. The learned Senior Counsel would also draw our attention to the Rules, namely, the Tamil Nadu Basic Service Rules, wherein the permanent posts in the service are enumerated to contend that once a particular post is enumerated as a permanent post in the Basic Service Rules, appointment of persons to such posts on a temporary basis itself would amount to a violation of the Rules, and therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the nature of the employment should also be looked into in order to either accept or deny the claim for permanent employment. 19. The learned Senior Counsel would also invite our attention to the judgment in Writ Appeal No.4079 of 2019 to which one of us is a party (Hon’ble Mr.Justice R. Subramanian), wherein the claim based on G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013 was rejected on the ground that it cannot be given retrospective effect so as to nullify the direction issued by this court earlier. Our attention is also drawn to the judgment of this court in Principal Secretary to Government and others v, Annamuthu in WA No:902 of 2015, where the nature of the employment was taken into account to conclude that the claim of the Government that the temporary employees are employed on a part-time basis is nothing but a farce. Reliance is also placed by the learned Senior Counsel on the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.413 of 2013, wherein the Division Bench had observed that for basic services sponsorship from employment exchange is not required, after considering the provisions of Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act 1959. 20. Decision of yet another Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.606 and 2830 of 2019 etc., is also relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel to contend that G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013 can only be prospective and it cannot be held to be retrospective so as to take away a vested right. Our attention is drawn to para 18, where there is a positive direction by the Bench to take the date of the said Government Order, namely 27.06.2013 as the cutoff date for completion of 10 years. 21. Our attention is drawn to para 18, where there is a positive direction by the Bench to take the date of the said Government Order, namely 27.06.2013 as the cutoff date for completion of 10 years. 21. In Writ Appeal Nos.337 and 338 of 2021, a Division Bench of this court had after referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chief Postmaster General and another v. G. Subramani and another reported in 2013 (7) MLJ 724 concluded that the benefit of regularisation must be granted uniformly and there cannot be a pick and choose method. The Division Bench took note of the fact that several orders have been passed by this court regularizing various employees and it found no reason to deviate from the said orders. 22. We shall now refer to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue of regularisation. We have already referred to the judgment in Umadevi’s case, which led to G.O.Ms.No.22 being passed on 28.02.2006. The introduction of the said Government Order led to a spate of applications for regularisation, which led the Government, which was already facing serious financial constraints, to look for avenues to get out of the situation brought about by passing of G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006. This, however, took more than eight years for the Government to come up with G.O.Ms.No.74 on 27.06.2013, which attempted to dilute the rigour of G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006. 23. Both these Government Orders, namely G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013 were subject matter of proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Secretariat and another v. A.Singamuthu, reported in 2017 (4) SCC 113 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the case of temporarily appointed part-time masalchis in the said case and concluded that G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006 would enable regularisation of only full-time employees and not part-time employees. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, did not go into the question of the nature of employment in Singamuthu’s case. 24. From the report, we do not find that the nature of employment or the duties assigned to such part-time employees are the question whether such posts were constituted under the Tamil Nadu Basic Service Rules were not addressed and we do not find any argument made in that regard. 24. From the report, we do not find that the nature of employment or the duties assigned to such part-time employees are the question whether such posts were constituted under the Tamil Nadu Basic Service Rules were not addressed and we do not find any argument made in that regard. However, subsequently in Sheo Narain Nagar and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in 2018 (13) SCC 432 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the impact of the judgment in Umadevi’s case and after noticing the observations made in paragraph 53 of Umadevi’s case, concluded that such temporary appointments made particularly by the Government are invariably on exploitative terms with no guarantee of livelihood. The Court also observed that such exploitative employments are amount to clear contravention of the constitutional provisions and aspirations of the downtrodden class. 25. We must also point out that we find such temporary employments only in the lower grade posts and as pointed out by a Division Bench of this court in WA No.536 of 2022 such employment amounts to slavery. As we had already pointed out the object that was sought to be achieved by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi’s case has not been achieved, despite 17 years having passed by. The statistics disclosed by the Chief Secretary of the Government of Tamil Nadu in the affidavit filed pursuant to our directions discloses that nearly a sum of Rs.776 crores have been paid as consolidated pay for the period from April 2023 to December 2023. This demonstrates the fact that the Governments of the day are continuing with the practice which has been decried by the Courts. 26. This demonstrates the fact that the Governments of the day are continuing with the practice which has been decried by the Courts. 26. Our attention is also drawn by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amarkantrai V. State of Bihar& Others, reported in 2015 (8) SCC 265 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed regularisation since similarly placed persons were regularized by the Government; Prem Ram vs. Managing Director, Uttarakhand Pey Jal and Nirman Nigam, Dehradun and others, reported in 2015 (11) SCC 255 , where the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed regularisation of work charged employees, who are working on daily wages; Durgapur Casual Workers Union and others vs. Food Corporation of India and others, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 786 , where the employment on temporary basis were held to be an unfair labour practice, to highlight the fact that regularisation is the norm; Jivanlal vs. Pravin Krishna, Principal Secretary and others, reported in (2016)15 SCC 747 , where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that parity should be maintained despite violation of policy; and Ravi Verma & Others vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2018 SCC online SC 3860 to urge that regularisation is the norm and parity between similarly placed persons should be maintained, even if it is in violation of the policy. 27. One of us (Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.Saravanan) had an occasion to consider the question of regularisation in the light of the relevant Government Orders issued. After referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sheo Narain Nagar and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, and the judgment in Delhi Jal Board vs. National Campaign for Dignity and rights of Sewerage and Allied Workers and others reported in 2011 (8) SCC 568 , invoked the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in Articles 38, 39, 41, 42 and 43 of the Constitution of India, to conclude that a welfare State cannot indulge in exploitation of its own citizens by employing them on a temporary basis. We cannot also loose sight of the fact that the Government as a welfare State comes up with various welfare schemes, which are by their very nature temporary and appointing permanent employees for the work relating to those schemes would prove to be a huge burden on the exchequer. We cannot also loose sight of the fact that the Government as a welfare State comes up with various welfare schemes, which are by their very nature temporary and appointing permanent employees for the work relating to those schemes would prove to be a huge burden on the exchequer. In such cases, it will definitely be open to the Government to employ part-time or temporary employees on daily wages or on consolidated salary. However, we find that such temporary or part-time employees are engaged even where the posts are covered by the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Basic Service. 28. The Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Basic Service were framed vide G.O.MS. No.1962 Public (Services-G) dated 25.06.1971. The said service called the Tamil Nadu Basic Service consists of at least 86 categories of employees, who constitute the said service. Method of appointment of those 86 categories of the employees is also prescribed in the said Rules. The fact that a particular cadre of employees is created by a Special Rules would definitely lead to the inference that those posts are permanent in nature and there is a perennial requirement for such jobs. Employment of persons on part-time or a temporary basis to such posts which farm part of the Tamil Nadu Basic Service would, in our considered opinion, definitely be an act of exploitation by the State. A welfare State is required to be a model employer and not an exploiter which indulges in slavery of its own citizens. 29. The Chief Secretary in his affidavit filed on 12.01.2024, pursuant to the directions issued by us, has taken care to point out that deployment of persons in various Government schemes on a temporary basis, cannot be avoided. While we agree with the said claim of the Government, what we are unable to digest is employment of persons on a temporary basis or on a part-time basis even in posts which are permanent and are covered by the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Basic service. The practice of employing persons on a temporary basis to permanent posts also is not a healthy practice. We must point out at this juncture that there is a provision for temporary appointment under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, Section 17 of the said Enactment provides for making of temporary appointments in public interest in case of emergencies. We must point out at this juncture that there is a provision for temporary appointment under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, Section 17 of the said Enactment provides for making of temporary appointments in public interest in case of emergencies. The said enactment would apply only to the State and Subordinate Services and not to the basic service. 30. Even the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules provides for temporary appointment under Rule 10(a)(i). Such enabling provision is conspicuously absent in the Special Rules relating to Tamil Nadu Basic Service. Such absence by itself would show that these posts which are covered by the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Basic Service are permanent in nature and since the recruitment does not involve a complicated procedure as is done for the higher post, temporary appointments due to exigencies was not contemplated. 31. Though Mr.S.Silambanan learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State would seek to contend that temporary appointments are made without reference to any recruitment procedure and therefore, they are in violation of the Rules. Hence, regularisation of such temporary or part-time employees would amount to back-door entry. We should also be alive to the fact that the practice of recruiting or appointing temporary employees and regularising their services at regular time gaps has become a permanent feature and despite the Hon’ble Supreme Court repeatedly pointing out that such practice should not continue the Governments are continuing with the said practice. This forces the Courts to evolve a method by which regularisations are carried out. The very fact that even after Umadevi’s case, we have so many decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court diluting the rigour of the said pronouncement shows that it is a necessary evil. 32. As we have already pointed out the temporary appointments are made even to teaching posts in Aided Schools and Colleges through the medium called the Parents Teachers Association and those teachers, who have been appointed to such permanent posts temporarily seek priority in appointment when a regular appointment is sought to be made. We have two sets of judgments of this Court. We have two sets of judgments of this Court. Ones that take the view that G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013 is retrospective in nature and therefore, part-time employees are not entitled to regularisation and the others, where this Court had taken a view, which appears to be more pragmatic, to the effect that parity must be ensured and the nature of the post should be looked into in order to decide, as to whether the benefit of regularisation should be made available to the employee concerned or not. 33. As we have already pointed out, we are in agreement with the view of the Division Bench in State of Tamil Nadu, by its Secretary, Public Works Department and another vs. S. John Charles and others, made in WA Nos.2875 of 2018 etc., wherein the Division Bench upheld G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013, on the ground that it is open to the Government to change its policy. The Division Bench that decided in State of Tamil Nadu rep by its Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department and others vs K.Rajakrishnan made in WA (MD) No.836 and 837 of 2014, did not have the benefit of the other pronouncements of the other Division Benches of this court. 34. A reference was made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai vs. R.Govindaswamy and others, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 769 , which we had already pointed out, did not deal with the two Government Orders that were subject matter of consideration before the other Division Benches of this Court. In fact the Division Bench in State of Tamil Nadu rep by its Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department and others vs K.Rajakrishnan, recorded a finding that the employee therein had not completed 10 years as on 20.08.2006. The fact whether he was a part- time employee or a temporary full-time employee is not available in the report. We are therefore, unable to take the judgment of the Division Bench, in State of Tamil Nadu rep by its Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department and others vs K.Rajakrishnan, as a precedent to conclude on the retrospectivity or otherwise of G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013. 35. We are therefore, unable to take the judgment of the Division Bench, in State of Tamil Nadu rep by its Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department and others vs K.Rajakrishnan, as a precedent to conclude on the retrospectivity or otherwise of G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013. 35. The other judgment, which is cited in the order of reference as one that would support the view that G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013 is retrospective, of the Division Bench in State of Tamil Nadu. by its Secretary, Public Works Department. and another vs.S. John Charles and others. The Appeal arose out of a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court, which had quashed Clause 6 of G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013, which restricts the operation of G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006 only to full time employees. The power of the Government to change its policy was upheld and in the course of the order, the Division Bench has observed that the Government has not taken away the right to regularize the services subsequently provided those persons had completed 10 years of service as on 28.02.2006. The Division Bench described the action of the Government in passing G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013 as an attempt to streamline the scheme relating to regularisation. Even the other judgments of this court, which have been referred to by us earlier, reaffirm the view that parity should be maintained, there should be no exploitation by the Government which is a welfare State and temporary or part-time employment to permanent posts should be stopped. 36. Having considered the entire literature that is available in the form of various pronouncements of this court, as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court,we find it difficult to accept the judgment of the Division Bench in State of Tamil Nadu. by its Secretary, Public Works Department. and another vs. S. John Charles and others, as one laying down the law to the effect that the Government is free to appoint persons either in part-time or on a full-time temporary basis to permanent posts and oust them out at it whims and fancies and we conclude that such unbridled exercise of indiscretions by the State Government would amount to exploitation. 37. 37. We are of the considered opinion that wherever the posts are permanent in nature and they come within 86 categories of posts which form the Tamil Nadu Basic Service, temporary or part-time employment should be avoided and those persons, who have been appointed to such posts and who have completed 10 years of service as on 28.02.2006 would be entitled to regularisation dehors the nomenclature that is given to the appointment. 38. In fine, we hold (a) If it shown that the appointment is made to anyone of the 86 categories of posts enumerated in the Tamil Nadu Basic Service immaterial of the fact that whether such appointment is part-time or fulltime, the employee would be entitled to the benefit of regularisation dehors G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013. (b) If it is shown that the nature of employment is temporary and the requirement will cease to exist after a particular time, like those appointments that are made under various welfare schemes, it will then be open to the Government to engage temporary employees or part- time employees. 39. We conclude that the judgments in State of Tamil Nadu. by its Secretary, Public Works Department. and another vs. S. John Charles and others, and State of Tamil Nadu rep by its Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department and others vs K.Rajakrishnan, cannot be taken as laying down an inflexible rule of law that any part-time or temporary employee who has completed 10 years of service on 28.02.2006 will not be entitled to regularisation. The benefit of regularisation will depend on the nature of the job and the fact that whether the post falls within any one of the 86 categories mentioned in the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Basic Service. 40. Having answered the reference as above, we direct the Registry to list the Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge as per the roster for disposal in accordance with the opinion expressed above.