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.18868 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 18.03.2021, whereby directions were issued to the present petitioner to grant the benefit of regularization on the post of Clerk. 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 Clerk or any equivalent post. As per the statement of claim, the respondents have been working since 03.04.1996 and though they had completed many 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 clerk from 03.04.2003 onwards. It was also directed to consider the period from 03.04.1996 to 19.08.2016 as a notional. However, the terminal benefits were directed to be paid from 03.04.1996 and the monetary benefits were directed to be paid from 19.08.2016. 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 submitted that there are four sanctioned post for tax clerk available in Nagar palika, however many seniors to present 3 workmen are working as a Rojamadar in the Nagar palika. 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 . 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 03.04.1996, even though regularization was ordered only from 03.04.2003. 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, there are total four post of Clerk is available in the sanction set up and 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. 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 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 there are total four posts available in Tax department and the duties attached to the said post involve recovery of tax in tax department. Learned advocate Ms.Pahwa submits that all the concerned workmen were engaged as Clerk, whose services were utilized by the Nagarpalika purely on a need-based, temporary basis. It is submitted that there are four sanctioned posts available in Nagar palika, however, many seniors to present 3 workmen are working as a Rojamadar in the Nagar palika, therefore, the learned Tribunal erred in directing the benefit of regularization. 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. 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. 6. Per contra, learned Advocate Ms. Chhaya, appearing on behalf of the respondent–workmen, submits that all the respondents have rendered continuous service with the petitioner–Nagarpalika for many years. Accordingly, the impugned award deserves to be set aside, and the petition filed by the employer is liable to be allowed. 6. Per contra, learned Advocate Ms. Chhaya, appearing on behalf of the respondent–workmen, submits that all the respondents have rendered continuous service with the petitioner–Nagarpalika for many years. Learned advocate Ms.Chhaya submits that the petitioner has indulged in unfair labour practices by engaging the respondents as daily wage basis 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 Clerk, 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. It is submitted by the learned advocate Ms.Chhaya that there are multiple vacant positions in the Class IV category. 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 advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, and upon perusal of the material placed on record, it emerges that the respondents have been engaged as Clerk and have been discharging duties continuously since the year 1996. It is an admitted position that there are four posts for clerk in tax department exists in the sanctioned set-up of the petitioner–Nagarpalika. The nature of the work carried out by the respondents has been detailed in the affidavit filed by the Chief Officer of the Nagarpalika, which is placed on record at page 208 of the compilation. The relevant details of the duties performed by all the respondents are reproduced hereinbelow:- Sr. no Name of Workmen S.C.A. No. Actual work done Qualificatio n Sr. No. in Seniority 1. Mohd. Rafik Alibhai Shaikh 18868 of 2021 He is working in Tax Dept. for recovery of tax. 12th Pass 23 2. AlirajMehral i Vakil 18236 of 2021 He is working in Tax Dept. for recovery of tax SSC 1 3. no Name of Workmen S.C.A. No. Actual work done Qualificatio n Sr. No. in Seniority 1. Mohd. Rafik Alibhai Shaikh 18868 of 2021 He is working in Tax Dept. for recovery of tax. 12th Pass 23 2. AlirajMehral i Vakil 18236 of 2021 He is working in Tax Dept. for recovery of tax SSC 1 3. Babubhai Mavjibhai Vasiya 3914 of 2022 Earlier, he was doing work of supervision in water works department . Now he is doing supervision and Line Repairing work in water works department . SSC 20 I say that in the sanctioned set-up Nagar Palika, following posts of clerk are available. Sr No. Post (in set-up) Total posts Vacant posts 4 Clerk 1 1 5 Record Clerk 1 0 7 Dispatch Clerk 1 0 13 Accountant Clerk 1 0 14 Audit Clerk 1 0 15 Provident Fund Clerk 1 17 Tax Clerk 4 1 29 Sani. Clerk 1 0 30 Stati. Clerk 1 1 31 Birth & Death Registration Clerk 1 0 62 Clerk 1 1 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. 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. 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.