ORDER : M.NAGAPRASANNA, J. 1. The petitioners in all these cases project a singular grievance that, although they have now been regularised, such regularisation ought to have been granted from the date of their initial engagement and not from the date of completion of 10 years of service. 2. The skeletal facts necessary for consideration of the issue are as follows: On 12.03.1996, the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of the cadre—TBP—came into force. After the Rules came into operation, all employees who had been engaged in the services of the cadre at any time between 1980 and 1996 were absorbed into the services of CADA. 3. The petitioners thereafter submitted representations to the respondents contending that they were entitled to regularisation or absorption from the date of their initial engagement, i.e., between the years 1980 and 1990. 4. The said representations merited a recommendation from respondent No.1–Board to the State Government. However, the recommendation remained only on paper. Therefore, the petitioners approached this Court in W.P. Nos.108803–108825 of 2014. 5. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petitions with a direction to consider the representations of the petitioners in accordance with the recommendation made by the Board to the State. The consideration of the representations has resulted in the impugned order, which is now under challenge in these petitions. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the services rendered by the petitioners from 1980 onwards for more than 3 to 4 years should be reckoned for calculating qualifying service and other benefits. According to him, even the period during which they served as daily wage employees or later as MRE workers should be treated as regular service. 7. This submission is refuted by the learned HCGP, who contends that if such a contention is accepted, every employee who has been regularised after completion of 10 years of service in accordance with law would approach this Court seeking regularisation from the date of initial engagement, which would open a Pandora’s box. 8. In light of these submissions, the only question that arises is whether the petitioners, who were regularised/absorbed into the services of CADA in 1996, are entitled to reckon their service from the date of initial engagement solely on the basis of a recommendation by CADA to the State Government. The answer to this question is an unequivocal and emphatic no. 9. The answer to this question is an unequivocal and emphatic no. 9. The petitioners were engaged as daily wage workers and later on MRE basis. They worked for 10 years or more. When the Cadre and Recruitment Rules came into force in 1996, absorption followed. This does not mean that every daily wage employee engaged in the absence of Cadre and Recruitment Rules must be treated as a regular employee from the date of such engagement. This would run counter to numerous judgments and Government Orders, including the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi , (2006) 4 SCC 1 wherein the Apex Court recognises regularisation or absorption only from the date of completion of  10 years of service. That has been done in the present case. Some of the employees have even retired from service. 10. The present claim pertains to monetary benefits for the period of 10–12 years during which they worked as daily wage employees. Granting such a prayer would, as rightly submitted by the learned HCGP, open a Pandora’s box and resurrect settled claims of regularisation across decades. Therefore, there is no warrant to accede to the request of the petitioners. 11. The petitions, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.