ORDER : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Invoking the writ jurisdiction, the petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of mandamus directing the State that the petitioners be given regularisation with retrospective date i.e. from initial date of appointment 09.06.1993 & 30.06.1993. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed in Special Recruitment Drive initiated by the Collector on the post of Chainman on daily wages basis on 09.06.1993 & 30.06.1993 and their services were not regularised leading to filing of Writ Petition (S) No.3177/2005 before this Court in which by order dated 28.08.2006, this Court directed the State Government to consider the case of the petitioners in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 and pursuant thereto, the petitioners were regularised on the post of Chainman w.e.f. 22.11.2007, which they accepted without demur and protest and thereafter after delay of six years, on 15.04.2013 this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners claiming that the regularisation granted on 22.11.2007 be directed to be granted from retrospective date i.e. from the date of their initial appointment i.e. on 09.06.1993 & 30.06.1993 respectively. 3. Return has been filed on behalf of the State that the petitioners were already been regularised on the post of Chainman on 22.11.2007 and there is delay of six years in filing this writ petition, which the petitioners have failed to explain and they were earlier appointed on daily wages, not appointed on sanctioned post in accordance with rules and in that view of above-stated facts, the petitioners are not entitled for retrospective regularisation from the date of their initial appointment i.e. on 09.06.1993 & 30.06.1993 and, as such, petitioners have no case for retrospective regularisation. 4. Ms. Juhi Anguria, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the claim of regularisation with retrospective effect is recurring cause of action and regularisation ought to have granted with retrospective effect from 09.06.1993 & 30.06.1993 and therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Mr. Soumya Rai, learned State counsel would support the impugned order and submits that the petitioners were not appointed on sanctioned posts in accordance with rules and, as such, the petitioners are not entitled for retrospective regularisation and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Mr. Soumya Rai, learned State counsel would support the impugned order and submits that the petitioners were not appointed on sanctioned posts in accordance with rules and, as such, the petitioners are not entitled for retrospective regularisation and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed on daily wages basis by the Collector as Chainman under the Special Recruitment Drive and payments were made on contingency basis and their services were not regularised leading to filing of the writ petition before this Court, in which, this Court directed to consider the case of the petitioners in light of Umadevi (supra) and accordingly they were regularised on 22.11.2007 by the order of competent authority. 8. Now, the petitioners are claiming retrospective regularisation from the date of their initial appointment i.e. 09.06.1993 & 30.06.1993. The ordinary meaning of regularisation is “to make regular” and the effect of such regularisation would depend on the object or purpose for which the regularisation is made or the stage at which it is made. Once regularised, the procedural infirmities which attended the appointment are cured. 9. The question as to whether the regularisation should be granted with retrospective effect or it should be prospective effect is no longer res integra. It has been considered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Registrar General of India & Another v. V. Thippa Setty & Others, (1998) 8 SCC 690 and it has been held by their Lordships that the regularization should ordinary be prospective so that seniority of those who are already in regular service is not affected and held as under : “2. …………It must be remembered that they had entered as ad hoc appointees and the question was whether they should be regularised in service since they had worked as ad hoc employees for a sufficiently long time. If the ad hoc service is regularised from the back date in this manner, it will disturb the seniority of regularly appointed employees in the cadre and, therefore, ordinarily the regularisation must take effect prospectively and not retrospectively. If the ad hoc service is regularised from the back date in this manner, it will disturb the seniority of regularly appointed employees in the cadre and, therefore, ordinarily the regularisation must take effect prospectively and not retrospectively. It must also be borne in mind that ad hoc appointees, casual labour and daily-rated persons are not subject to strict discipline of service and it is a matter of common experience that their attendance is very often not regular and at times they do not even meet the qualification for appointment since they are taken on ad hoc basis. These deficiencies are overlooked by way of granting of relaxation and, therefore, care must be taken to see that they do not upset the seniorities of regular appointees. Whether they qualify in a given case or not is not relevant but what is relevant is that regularisation should be prospective and not retrospective as the chances of their upsetting the seniorities cannot be overlooked. The Tribunal must take care to see that when they pass orders of regularisation from retrospective dates, those who are likely to be affected on account of that order are not before that court and unwittingly their careers are not adversely affected. Ordinarily, therefore, the regularisation must be prospective.” 10. Similarly, in Union of India & Others v. Sheela Rani, (2007) 15 SCC 230 , the principles of law laid down in V. Thippa Setty (supra) has been followed by the Supreme Court with approval and held in para 11 as under : “11. In Registrar General of India & Anr. Vs. V. Thippa Setty & Ors. (supra), the Tribunal's direction was to regularize the respondents w.e.f. the date of promulgation of the recruitment rules or from the date of their appointment depending on the seniority list. In pursuance of the said direction, on the new recruitment rules being promulgated on 11.5.1985, the regularization was given effect from that date. However, in the subsequent order passed by the Tribunal on 19.2.1993, the Tribunal had directed that they should be treated as having been conferred regular status w.e.f. 5.2.1981 i.e. the date of their entry into service as Investigators. This Court held that the employees had entered as ad hoc appointees and the question was whether they should be regularized in service since they had worked as ad hoc employees for a sufficient long time. This Court held that the employees had entered as ad hoc appointees and the question was whether they should be regularized in service since they had worked as ad hoc employees for a sufficient long time. If the ad hoc service is regularized from the back date in this manner, it will disturb the seniority of regularly appointed employees in the cadre and, therefore, ordinarily the regularization must take effect prospectively and not retrospectively. This Court ordered that care must be taken to see that regularization do not upset the seniorities of regular appointees. Whether they qualify in a given case or not is not relevant but what is relevant is that regularization should be prospective and not retrospective as the chances of their upsetting the seniorities cannot be overlooked. 11. In the matter of M. Janardhan & Others v. State of A.P. & Others, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 298 it has been held by their Lordships that the grant of retrospective regularisation must be traceable to Rules. In the matter of Masood Akhtar Khan & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, (1990) 4 SCC 24 considering the Rules of M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, Rule 7, it has been held relying upon the earlier decisions that if the initial appointment is not made according to the Rules, subsequent regularisation of his service does not entitle an employee to the benefit of intervening service for seniority. 12. In the instant case, the petitioners were initially not appointed on the sanctioned posts in accordance with rules, they were kept on daily wages on a fixed remuneration and in light of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Umadevi (supra), the petitioners’ case for regularisation were considered and they were regularised by order dated 22.11.2007 with prospective effect. In that view of the matter, the petitioners have rightly been regularised from prospective date and they were not entitled for regularisation from retrospective effect. As such, I do not find any merit in this petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs.