JUDGMENT : M. K. THAKKER, J. 1. Since the issue raised in these petitions are similar, they are being decided by a common judgment. The facts of Special Civil Application No.16606 of 2021 are taken for the purpose of adjudication. 2. The present petition is filed challenging the award passed by the learned Reference Court dated 05.04.2021, whereby directions were issued to the present petitioner to grant the benefit of regularization on the post of Peon. 3. It is the case of the present petitioner that the dispute was raised before the learned Industrial Court, seeking regularization on the post of Peon or any equivalent post. As per the statement of claim, the respondents have been working since 01.06.2000 and though they had completed 10 years of service, they have not been regularized neither granted the benefit of permanency. The learned Reference Court, considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, has partly allowed the reference in favor of the respondent by granting the benefit of permanency on the post of Peon from 01.06.2007 onwards. It was also directed to consider the period from 01.06.2000 to 15.12.2016 as a notional. However, the terminal benefits were directed to be paid from 01.06.2000 and the monetary benefits were directed to be paid from 15.12.2016. 4. Heard learned advocate Ms. Sangeeta Pahwa for the petitioner employer and learned advocate Ms. Khushbu Chhaya for the respondent employee. 5. Learned advocate Ms. Pahwa, appearing on behalf of the petitioner–Nagarpalika, submits that the benefit of permanency cannot be granted, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Others v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmachari Sanghatana reported in (2009) 8 SCC 556 , it is contended that there are total 8 posts of peon are vacant in the sanctioned setup. However, out of which, 3 posts are of peons, 2 posts are of ward peon, 2 posts are of peon for animal husbandry and 1 post of office peon. However, the respondent was not working under any of the sanctioned categories. It is also submitted by learned advocate Ms.Pahwa that admittedly, no juniors to the respondent workmen has been regularized. However, out of which, 3 posts are of peons, 2 posts are of ward peon, 2 posts are of peon for animal husbandry and 1 post of office peon. However, the respondent was not working under any of the sanctioned categories. It is also submitted by learned advocate Ms.Pahwa that admittedly, no juniors to the respondent workmen has been regularized. It is further submitted that mere continuation in service or length of service does not confer a right to regularization, as held by the Apex Court in Hari Nandan Prasad v. Employer I/R to Mangmt.of FCI & Anr. reported in (2014) 7 SCC 190 . Learned advocate Ms.Pahwa submits that the Tribunal committed an error in granting notional benefits such as seniority, pensionary benefits and gratuity from 01.06.2000, even though regularization was ordered only from 01.06.2007. Learned advocate Ms.Pahwa submits that when regularization is granted from a specific date, no retrospective financial or service benefits prior to that date can be granted. 5.1 Learned advocate Ms.Pahwa submits that the reliance was placed on the evidence of Mr.Jignesh Rashmikant Shah who was regularized after seven years pursuant to the order passed by the learned Tribunal, without appreciating the fact that the said wager was appointed as a Clerk in Class III cadre on compassionate ground upon death of his father who was serving as an Accountant in the petitioner Nagarpalika. Without appreciating this factual distinction, the Tribunal wrongly extended similar benefits to the respondent–workman. Learned advocate Ms.Pahwa submits that it is settle position of law that when the post is available in the set up and the workers are working since many years, the benefit of permanency can be granted. However, in the present case, no juniors to the present respondents were regularized, therefore, the benefit of permanency cannot be granted in favour of the respondents who are working on temporary basis. Learned advocate Ms.Pahwa submits that none of the respondents possessed the requisite educational qualifications for appointment to a permanent post. It is also submitted that the work performed by the respondent–workman is neither permanent nor perennial in nature and though the work done by the respondent workmen and by the regular employees are completely different and distinct, the learned Court has directed to grant the benefit of regularization to the respondent workman. It is also submitted that the work performed by the respondent–workman is neither permanent nor perennial in nature and though the work done by the respondent workmen and by the regular employees are completely different and distinct, the learned Court has directed to grant the benefit of regularization to the respondent workman. Learned advocate Ms.Pahwa submits that the respondents were called only when the work was available, therefore, it cannot be said that they have served continuously and therefore, also impugned award deserves to be interfered with. Learned advocate Ms.Pahwa submits that the Nagarpalika is facing a severe financial crunch, with administrative expenditure constituting 83.62% of its total income for the year 2019–20 and even if posts are created for regularization, the financial burden would be unsustainable. Therefore, too the impugned award deserves to be set aside. 5.2 Learned Advocate Ms. Pahwa submits that the respondent–workman, however, was not engaged in either of these designated roles, and the nature of his work was entirely different. Learned advocate Ms.Pahwa submits that all the concerned workmen were engaged as Rojamdars, whose services were utilized by the Nagarpalika purely on a need-based, temporary basis. It is further submitted by learned advocate Ms.Pahwa that no similarly situated workman has been regularized, and even though senior to the respondent continue to work on a temporary basis. Granting relief to the respondent in such circumstances would result in discrimination against those senior employees who are yet to be regularized. It is submitted by the learned advocate Ms.Pahwa that, as per the statutory procedure, if any vacant post is to be filled, the Regional Commissioner must submit a proposal to the Commissioner of Municipalities to obtain the necessary sanction. However, till date, no such sanction has been granted, as the expenditure of Nagarpalika is around 53%. Learned advocate Ms.Pahwa submits that although 154 Class IV posts are shown as vacant in the sanctioned set-up, several senior employees have been awaiting regularization for years. It is, therefore, submitted that the benefit of regularization ought to be conferred, if at all, upon such senior employees first. Granting such a benefit to the present respondent, to the exclusion of those seniors, would be inequitable and unjust. Accordingly, the impugned award deserves to be set aside, and the petition filed by the employer is liable to be allowed. 5.3 Learned advocate Ms. Granting such a benefit to the present respondent, to the exclusion of those seniors, would be inequitable and unjust. Accordingly, the impugned award deserves to be set aside, and the petition filed by the employer is liable to be allowed. 5.3 Learned advocate Ms. Pahwa submits that though, as per the contention, vacant posts are available, the respondents are placed at Serial No.29 onwards in the seniority. Learned advocate Ms. Pahwa submits that no benefit of permanency can be granted prior to the employees who were working before the present respondents. 5.4 In view of above submissions, learned advocate Ms. Pahwa prays to allow the present petition by setting aside the impugned award. 6. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Chhaya, appearing on behalf of the respondent–workmen, submits that all the respondents have rendered long continuous service with the petitioner–Nagarpalika. Learned advocate Ms.Chhaya submits that the petitioner has indulged in unfair labour practices by engaging the respondents as daily wage Peon while extracting work of a permanent and regular nature. Learned advocate Ms.Chhaya submits that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is applicable in the present case, and although the respondents have been designated as a daily wage Peon, they have been discharging functions comparable to those of permanent employees. It is also submitted by learned advocate Ms.Chhaya that the respondents are even willing to accept regularization on equivalent posts and are ready to resume duty on such posts, if so directed. It is submitted by the learned advocate Ms.Chhaya that there are total 8 posts of Peon are vacant in the set up of Nagarpalika, out of which 3 posts are of peon, 2 posts are of ward peon, 2 pots are of peon of animal husbandry and 1 post of office peon. Learned advocate Ms.Chhaya submits that the learned Labour Court, after duly considering evidence on record and assigning cogent reasons, has rightly allowed the reference in favour of the respondents. Accordingly, no interference is warranted with the well-reasoned award passed by the learned Tribunal, and the present petition filed by the employer is liable to be dismissed. 7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and the reply which is filed at page No.158 onwards, wherein it is stated that 8 posts of peon are vacant in the sanctioned setup. 7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and the reply which is filed at page No.158 onwards, wherein it is stated that 8 posts of peon are vacant in the sanctioned setup. However, out of which, 3 posts are of peons, two posts are of ward peon, 2 posts are of peon for animal husbandry and one post of office peon. The relevant paragraph of the additional affidavit filed is reproduced hereinbelow. “I say that total 8 posts of peon are wavant in the set-up of Nagar Palika, out of which 3 posts are of peon, 2 posts are of ward peon, 2 posts are of peon for animal husbandry (Dhor Dabba Pattawala), 1 post of office peon. However, in the seniority list of the Class-IV Cadre, all the workmen are placed much below and other senior persons are still not regularised. I say that not a single workmen junior to all these workmen is regularized. I say that all these workmen are placed in seniority list as under:- Sr. No. Name of Workmen S.C.A. No. Seniority List 1. Mansukhbhai Jairambhai Bheel (Serial No.29 in seniority list) 19215 of 2021 29 2. Chetanbhai R. Pandya (Serial No.44 in seniority list) 16606 of 2021 44 3. Udaybhai Rasikbhai Joshi(Serial No.37 in seniority list) 17832 of 2021 37 4. Vitthalbhai Arjanbhai Bambhaniya 4591 of 2022 41 7.1 This Court has referred the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Central Administrative Tribunal, reported in (2019) 4 SCC 290 , wherein it is held as under; “14. From the record before this Court, it has emerged that as a matter of fact, four persons were regularised after the judgment of the High Court in the earlier round of proceedings. The Tribunal has entered a finding of fact that the persons who were regularised were junior to those who ranked above them in the seniority list. From the record before this Court, it has emerged that as a matter of fact, four persons were regularised after the judgment of the High Court in the earlier round of proceedings. The Tribunal has entered a finding of fact that the persons who were regularised were junior to those who ranked above them in the seniority list. The applicability of Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] to a situation such as present, has been dealt with in several judgments of this Court, including the decisions in Malathi Das [Malathi Das v. Suresh, (2014) 13 SCC 249 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 356] and Prem Ram [Prem Ram v. Uttarakhand Pey Jal & Nirman Nigam, (2015) 11 SCC 255 : (2015) 3 SCC (L&S) 240] , referred to earlier. 24. Accordingly, we direct that the case for regularisation shall be considered strictly in accordance with the seniority list in pursuance of the directions which were issued by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court and such of the persons, who are available for regularisation on the basis of vacancies existing at present, shall be considered in accordance with law. The Tribunal has denied back wages but has ordered a notional fixation of pay and allowances. While affirming that direction, we also direct that persons who have crossed the age of superannuation will be entitled to the computation and payment of their retiral dues on that basis. This exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months from the receipt of a copy of the judgment. If it becomes necessary to grant age relaxation to the workmen concerned, the appellants shall do so” 7.2. In the considered opinion of this Court action of regularizing the junior, by-passing in the process, the person who had put in longer years of service was manifestly unfair and arbitrary. Taking up individual for regularizing, while ignoring seniors amounts to arbitrariness and would be injustice to the seniors. In that background, the impugned award is required to be modified by directing the present petitioner to consider the case of the present respondent for permanency according to the seniority, which is stated in the affidavit as reproduced hereinabove. 8. Resultantly, the present petitions are partly allowed.