ORDER : ASHOK S.KINAGI, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition, seeking for the following reliefs: (I) quash the endorsement dated 28.03.2016 vide Annexure "AG" issued by respondent No.3 as violative of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition Nos.42116-42253 of 2001 dated 03.12.2001 vide Annexure "B" and the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.9573 of 2007 dated 07.03.2014. (II) direct the respondents to consider the cases of petitioners and to regularise the services of the petitioners on completion of 10 years based on the clarification issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 07.03.2014 in the case of Malthi Das (retired) now P.B.Mahishy and others vs. Suresh & others , which is reported in (2014) 13 SCC 249 (III) direct the respondent to extend all consequential benefits such as difference of salary increment and fixation of salary on regularisation of service upon completion of 10 years of service." 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this Writ Petition are as follows: 3. The petitioners are working on a daily basis, and they have completed more than 25 to 32 years of service as of now. Most of the petitioners approached this Court by filing writ petition in W.P. Nos.42116-42253 of 2001 seeking a direction to the respondents to consider their case on par with the cases of Premakala Shetty, Narasimha Raju etc., for regularisation and for such other relief. This Court, vide Order dated 03.12.2001, disposed of the said writ petitions, by issuing a direction to the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners in accordance with the judgment passed in W.P. Nos.42096-42113 of 2001 (Vasudeva Shetty and others vs. State of Karnataka and others). 4. The State Government preferred writ Appeal in W.A. Nos.2598-2735 of 2002 before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeals vide order dated 14.10.2003. 5. It is averred that Vasudeva Shetty's case (supra) was disposed of by this Court by giving effect to the direction of this Court vide Order dated 10.09.1999 passed in WP Nos.33541-33557 of 1998 and connected matters. The said order passed by the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench in W.A. Nos.2765-2905 of 2001 vide judgment dated 23.01.2001. 6. As against the said judgment, Special Leave Petition was filed in SLP (Civil) CC Nos.7855-7995 of 2001. The said order passed by the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench in W.A. Nos.2765-2905 of 2001 vide judgment dated 23.01.2001. 6. As against the said judgment, Special Leave Petition was filed in SLP (Civil) CC Nos.7855-7995 of 2001. The Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the SLP vide order dated 05.11.2001. 7. After the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the State Government framed a Scheme dated 19.07.2002 by implementing the order dated 05.11.2001 passed in SLP (Civil) CC Nos.7855-7995 of 2001. Another batch of similarly placed petitioners approached this Court by filing writ petitions, and the said writ petitions were disposed of, against which, a writ appeal was preferred. The writ appeals came to be dismissed. The State Government preferred a special leave petition. The said special leave petition came to be dismissed vide Order dated 21.07.2005. 8. Pursuant to the order dated 21.07.2005 passed in SLP Nos.109-498 of 2003, one more scheme dated 29.12.2005 was framed by the State Government. Most of the petitioners submitted a representation to the respondents for the regularisation of their services. Most of the respondents issued an endorsement dated 28.03.2016 stating that they are not parties to Malti Das case, (referred supra) and the decision rendered in Malti Das case (referred supra) cannot be made applicable to the petitioners. The petitioners, aggrieved by the impugned endorsements dated 28.03.2016, vide Annexures "A" and "G", filed this writ petition. 9. Heard Sri. Lakshminarayana, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the Additional Advocate General for the respondents. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed on a daily basis and employed by the respondents during 1984-1993. He submits that they have completed more than 10 years of service and are only receiving minimum wages. He submits that similarly situated petitioners approached this Court. This Court directed the respondents to consider the case of those petitioners in a series of judgments for regularisation. He submits that in some cases, the Government has complied with the order passed by this Court in the writ petitions. However, in the instant case, the respondents have refused to regularize the services of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners were not parties to Malti Das case (referred supra). He submits that in some cases, the Government has complied with the order passed by this Court in the writ petitions. However, in the instant case, the respondents have refused to regularize the services of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners were not parties to Malti Das case (referred supra). The action of the respondents in refusing to regularise the services of the petitioners is discriminatory and violative of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. 11. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the following Orders/judgments of this Court as well as the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, and the order passed by the Government, which are related to the regularization of the service of the employees: 12. He also submits that the respondents are passing an order for regularisation only in selected cases, and hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition and issue a direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners and to fix their pay scale. 13. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the action of the respondents, in refusing to regularize the services of the petitioners, is legal. He submits that the petitioners work for daily wages and their appointment was not against any sanctioned post. They were not appointed by following the procedures. He submits that regularization of the daily wage workers appointed after 01.07.1984 came to be halted. He submits that as per the conditions at paragraph 53 of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of karnataka V/s Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , the persons who did not work for more than 10 years and did not fulfill the conditions as laid down in paragraph 53 of the said judgment are not entitled to regularisation of service. The State Government has brought an enactment called as the Karnataka Daily Wages Employees' Welfare Act, 2012 to protect the services of the daily wages employees and giving certain benefits to them. 14. To buttress his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos.120 & 128-329 of 1999, disposed of on 01.02.2001, wherein the Division Bench has set aside the positive direction issued by the learned Single Judge. 15. 14. To buttress his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos.120 & 128-329 of 1999, disposed of on 01.02.2001, wherein the Division Bench has set aside the positive direction issued by the learned Single Judge. 15. Further, to buttress his arguments, the learned Additional Government Advocate placed reliance on the following judgments: 16. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 17. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 18. The petitioners approached this Court in W.P. Nos.33541-571 of 1998 seeking a prayer to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation of their service. This Court, vide Order dated 10.09.1999 disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation of their services. The Order passed by the Learned Single Judge was challenged in a Writ Appeal Nos.2765-2905 of 2000. In the said writ appeal, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal and confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The orders passed by the learned Single Judge and Division Bench were challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP Nos.7855-7995 of 2001. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP vide Order dated 05.11.2001. Those petitioners were directed to submit a representation with the additional details in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 19. This Court, in several cases, along with the cases in W.P.Nos.37117-176 of 1999 disposed of on 15.12.1999 and in W.P. Nos.42096-113 of 2001 disposed of on 29.11.2001, dealt with the matter of regularisation of service of the employees who have put in service for more than 10 years and who were eligible for the regularisation of their services, and the order of regularisation was passed and the same was confirmed by the division bench of this Court and also was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 20. Admittedly, the petitioners are working with the respondents. They have produced a list marked as Annexure- A, showing the service particulars, in which the date of joining of each petitioners is shown at column No.6. As per this list, the petitioners have joined the services under the respondents during 1984 to 1995. 21. 20. Admittedly, the petitioners are working with the respondents. They have produced a list marked as Annexure- A, showing the service particulars, in which the date of joining of each petitioners is shown at column No.6. As per this list, the petitioners have joined the services under the respondents during 1984 to 1995. 21. From the perusal of the chart at Annexure "A" produced by the petitioners, it discloses that the petitioners have worked for more than 10 years. 22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo V. Union of India reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 held as follows: " 7. They urged the High Court to recognize their long and continuous service, the nature of their work, and the lack of any backdoor or illegal entry. They highlighted that they had functioned without any break, performed tasks equivalent to regular employees, and had been assigned duties essential to the regular upkeep, cleanliness, and maintenance of the respondent's offices. The High Court, after examining the Tribunal's decision and the submissions advanced, concluded that the petitioners before it were part-time workers who had not been appointed against sanctioned posts, nor had they performed a sufficient duration of full-time service to satisfy the criteria for regularization. It relied on the principle laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi holding that the petitioners could not claim a vested right to be absorbed or regularized without fulfilling the requisite conditions. The High Court further observed that the petitioners did not possess the minimum educational qualifications ordinarily required for regular appointments, and additionally noted that the employer had subsequently outsourced the relevant housekeeping and maintenance activities. Concluding that there was no legal basis to grant the reliefs sought, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by this rejection, the appellants have approached this Court by way of these appeals. 8. On behalf of the appellants, the following arguments have been advanced before us: (i) Continuous and Substantive Engagement: The appellants emphasise their long, uninterrupted service spanning well over a decade-and in some instances, exceeding two decades. They argue that their duties were neither sporadic nor project-based but permanent and integral to the daily functioning of the respondent's offices. (ii) Nature of Duties: Their responsibilities-such as cleaning, dusting, gardening, and other maintenance tasks- were not casual or peripheral. They argue that their duties were neither sporadic nor project-based but permanent and integral to the daily functioning of the respondent's offices. (ii) Nature of Duties: Their responsibilities-such as cleaning, dusting, gardening, and other maintenance tasks- were not casual or peripheral. Instead, they were central to ensuring a clean, orderly, and functional work environment, effectively aligning with roles typically associated with regular posts. (iii) Absence of Performance Issues: Throughout their tenure, the appellants were never issued any warning or adverse remarks. They highlight that their work was consistently satisfactory, and there was no indication from the respondents that their performance was not satisfactory or required improvement. (iv) Compliance with 'Uma Devi' Guidelines: The appellants assert that their appointments were not "illegal" but at most "irregular." Drawing on the principles laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, they submit that long- serving employees in irregular appointments-who fulfil essential, sanctioned functions-are entitled to consideration for regularization. (v) Discrimination in Regularization: The appellants point out that individuals with fewer years of service or similar engagements have been regularized. They contend that denying them the same benefit, despite their longer service and crucial role, constitutes arbitrary and discriminatory treatment. (vi) Irrelevance of Educational Qualifications: The appellants reject the respondents' reliance on formal educational requirements, noting that such criteria were never enforced earlier and that the nature of their work does not inherently demand formal schooling. They argue that retrospectively imposing such qualifications is unjustified given their proven capability over many years. (vii) Equity and Fairness: Ultimately, the appellants submit that the High Court erred by focusing too rigidly on their initial terms of engagement and ignoring the substantive reality of their long, integral service. They maintain that fairness, equity, and established judicial principles call for their regularization rather than abrupt termination 9. On the other hand, the following primary arguments have been advanced before us on behalf of the Respondents: (i) Nature of Engagement: The respondents maintain that the appellants were engaged purely on a part-time, contractual basis, limited to a few hours a day, and that their work was never intended to be permanent or full-time. (ii) Absence of Sanctioned Posts: They assert that the appellants were not appointed against any sanctioned posts. According to the respondents, without sanctioned vacancies, there can be no question of regularization or absorption into the permanent workforce. (ii) Absence of Sanctioned Posts: They assert that the appellants were not appointed against any sanctioned posts. According to the respondents, without sanctioned vacancies, there can be no question of regularization or absorption into the permanent workforce. (iii) Non-Compliance with 'Uma Devi' Criteria: Relying heavily on Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (supra), the respondents argue that the appellants do not meet the conditions necessary for regularization. They emphasize that merely serving a long period on a part-time or ad- hoc basis does not create a right to be regularized. (iv) Educational Qualifications: The respondents contend that even if the appellants were to be considered for regular appointments, they do not possess the minimum educational qualifications mandated for regular recruitment. This, in their view, disqualifies the appellants from being absorbed into regular service. (v) Outsourcing as a Legitimate Policy Decision: The respondents point out that they have chosen to outsource the relevant housekeeping and maintenance work to a private agency. This, they argue, is a legitimate administrative policy decision aimed at improving efficiency and cannot be interfered with by the courts. (vi) No Fundamental Right to Regularization: Finally, the respondents underscore that no employee, merely by virtue of long-standing temporary or parttime engagement, acquires a vested right to be regularized. They maintain that the appellants' claims are devoid of any legal entitlement and that the High Court was correct in dismissing their petition. 10. Having given careful consideration to the submissions advanced and the material on record, we find that the appellants' long and uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual. The essence of their employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route. 11. The appellants, throughout their tenure, were engaged in performing essential duties that were indispensable to the day-to-day functioning of the offices of the Central Water Commission (CWC). Applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 3, as Safaiwalis, were responsible for maintaining hygiene, cleanliness, and a conducive working environment within the office premises. Their duties involved sweeping, dusting, and cleaning of floors, workstations, and common areas-a set of responsibilities that directly contributed to the basic operational functionality of the CWC. Applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 3, as Safaiwalis, were responsible for maintaining hygiene, cleanliness, and a conducive working environment within the office premises. Their duties involved sweeping, dusting, and cleaning of floors, workstations, and common areas-a set of responsibilities that directly contributed to the basic operational functionality of the CWC. Applicant No. 5, in the role of a Khallasi (with additional functions akin to those of a Mali), was entrusted with critical maintenance tasks, including gardening, upkeep of outdoor premises, and ensuring orderly surroundings. 12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workers," the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants' tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. 13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another, further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional. 14. XXX 15. XXX 16. The appellants' consistent performance over their long tenures further solidifies their claim for regularization. At no point during their engagement did the respondents raise any issues regarding their competence or performance. On the contrary, their services were extended repeatedly over the years, and their remuneration, though minimal, was incrementally increased which was an implicit acknowledgment of their satisfactory performance. The respondents' belated plea of alleged unsatisfactory service appears to be an afterthought and lacks credibility. 17. XXX 18. XXX 19. XXX 20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The respondents' belated plea of alleged unsatisfactory service appears to be an afterthought and lacks credibility. 17. XXX 18. XXX 19. XXX 20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly "irregular," and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors ., it was held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgment have been reproduced below: "6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra). 7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case…" 21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of the appellants' engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of employment: continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity. 22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. 23. XXX 24. The landmark judgment of the United States in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common- law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment. 25. XXX 26. XXX 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment. 25. XXX 26. XXX 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country." 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent decision in the case of Shripal and another vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 221 , has held at paragraphs 15 , which reads as follows : "15. It is manifest that the appellant workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the employer's failure to furnish such records despite directions to do so, allows an adverse influence under the well- established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavours perpetual Daily wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contract agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite temporary employment practice as done by the recent judgment of this Court in Jaggo vs union of India reported in 2024 INSC 1034 following paragraphs: "22.The pervasive misuse of the temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader Systematic issue that adversely affects the worker's right and job security. In the private sector, rise of gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by the lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labor standards. In the private sector, rise of gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by the lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labor standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principle of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When a public sector entity engage in the misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. x x x 25. It is a disconcerting reality that the temporary employees, particularly in the government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long term obligations owned to employees. This practice manifests in several ways: • Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. • Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. • Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. • Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. • Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. • Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances." 23. The above stated decisions would state that if the employees who are initially appointed on a temporary basis are continued for a very long period, their cases need to be considered for regularisation. 24. The petitioners have produced several orders of regularization passed by various Departments of the State Government, viz., Commercial Department order dated 20.02.2025 in respect of Sri.Mayanna Gowda; Water Resources Department order dated 10.10.2022 of Mahadevappa Dalawai; Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Sciences University, order dated 16.10.2024 in respect of Ms.Jyothi D.; and orders in respect of A.K Vasantha, Venkataraju, Ayanna, B.S.Kruthika, Nagaraju, Suresh, Nayeem Akther, Ningappa & R Jagadish. All these orders were passed based on the Orders by this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the writ petitions, writ Appeals and the Special Leave Petitions. 25. The petitioners have been working for more than 10 years and the respondents have made them run from pillar to post, since 2001. The petitioners are not getting the fruits of the orders passed in their favour. The State had taken steps to implement the orders passed in the writ petitions, writ appeals and the SLPs. Despite repeated orders passed by this Court, the respondents are implementing the said orders, wherever the petitioners approach, but they are not regularising the services of the employees who have not approached this Court. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to regularisation of service from the date they have completed 10 years of their service. 26. For the reasons stated above, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER 1. The Writ Petition is allowed 2. A mandamus is issued directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners herein from the dates on which the petitioners have completed 10 years of their service. 3. 26. For the reasons stated above, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER 1. The Writ Petition is allowed 2. A mandamus is issued directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners herein from the dates on which the petitioners have completed 10 years of their service. 3. The petitioners shall become entitled to fixation of their salaries on such regularization, as obtained by the permanent employees, from the dates they have completed 10 years of service, however, they would not be entitled to arrears of salary. But, the period shall be treated as continuous for all consequential benefits that would flow from such regularisation. 4. The services rendered by the petitioners throughout shall be counted for the determination of pension and all other incidental terminal benefits. 5. The aforesaid direction shall be complied with by the respondents within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.