ORDER : P.G. Ajithkumar, J. 1. This is an application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 by the Travancore Devaswom Board. The petitioner seeks permission to regularise the services of three persons, who were later impleaded as additional respondent Nos. 3 to 5. They are presently working as daily wage employees in Sabari Estate, Nilakkal as part-time Kazhakam/Thali under the Travancore Devaswom Board. 2. The petitioner submits that before 31.03.2012, additional respondents No.3 to 5 completed five years of service. This Court as per the judgment dated 31.05.2012 in W.P. (C) No.6021 of 2011 and connected cases, Annexure A1, accorded permission to regularise daily wage employees, who had put in five years of service as on 31.03.2012. Stating that the names of additional respondents No.3 to 5 were omitted to be included in the list of employees to be regularised in terms of the said judgment, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. In terms of various orders, additional respondents No.2 to 38 were impleaded. The 1 st respondent, Senior Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department filed counter-affidavit dated 06.05.2023. It was contended that services of additional respondents No.3 to 5 could not be regularised in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi , (2006) 4 SCC 1 and various other decisions of the Apex Court. 4. The 2 nd respondent-Secretary, Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board filed counter-affidavit dated 27.06.2023. The 2 nd respondent also set forth similar contentions as raised by the 1 st respondent. Respondents No.6 to 38 were impleaded on the application of additional respondents No.3 to 5. Their contention is that after commencement of their service only, the additional respondents No.6 to 38 entered the payroll of Travancore Devaswom Board and when the Travancore Devaswom Board regularised the services of additional respondents No.6 to 38, they have every entitlement to get their service also regularised. 5. Additional respondent No.33 entered appearance and filed a counter-affidavit stating that he was appointed from the list prepared by the 2 nd respondent-Devaswom Recruitment Board and his name was inadvertently included in I.A.No.2 of 2023, which was filed by additional respondents No.3 to 5 for impleading. 6. 5. Additional respondent No.33 entered appearance and filed a counter-affidavit stating that he was appointed from the list prepared by the 2 nd respondent-Devaswom Recruitment Board and his name was inadvertently included in I.A.No.2 of 2023, which was filed by additional respondents No.3 to 5 for impleading. 6. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Recruitment Board and the learned counsel for the party respondents. 7. The petitioner seeks permission to regularise the services of additional respondents No.3 to 5. It is stated that their names were omitted from the list of employees regularised in terms of the permission granted in Annexure A1 judgment. Annexure A1 is the common judgment dated 31.05.2012 in W.P. (C) No.6021 of 2011 and connected cases. Paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 in Annexure A1 judgment read as follows: “5. Adv. P. Gopal on behalf of the Board in WP (C) No.6021 of 2011 says that some time in 2009, there was a decision by the Board to regularise persons who had put in five years of daily rated service as on 1.7.2009. Adv. G. Biju appearing for TDB in the DBAs and in WP (C) No.20417 of 2011 states that by now, the Board has taken a decision to regularise such persons who have served as daily rated employees for five years as on 31.3.2012. 6. In the aforesaid premises, we grant permission for the appointments as sought for in DBA Nos. 36 and 37 of 2011 and direct that the Board shall finalise the list of persons to be regularised in accordance with the submissions made above, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Appropriate orders shall be issued regularising the employees found due. In doing so, the claim of the petitioners in WP (C) Nos. 6021 and 20417 of 2011 will also be considered in accordance with law subject to the condition that they make appropriate request if their names do not find a place in the provisional list already published. The writ petitions and the DBAs are ordered accordingly.” 8. Annexure A2 is the order of the Devaswom Board dated 27.02.2020. It is stated that additional respondents No.3 to 5 had been working as daily wage employees for more than five years as on 31.03.2012. The writ petitions and the DBAs are ordered accordingly.” 8. Annexure A2 is the order of the Devaswom Board dated 27.02.2020. It is stated that additional respondents No.3 to 5 had been working as daily wage employees for more than five years as on 31.03.2012. It is stated that 28 daily wage employees were regularised as allowed in Annexure A1 judgment and additional respondents No.3 to 5 were inadvertently excluded from that list. 9. Respondents No.1 and 2 do not dispute the fact that additional respondents No.3 to 5 are now working under the Travancore Devaswom Board. Respondent No.1, however, would contend that they are not Temple employees, but employed in the Estate of the Travancore Devaswom Board and as such they cannot claim the benefit of the order by which 28 daily waged employees were regularised. It is the further contention that after the said order, which was in 2012, Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Act, 2015 was enacted and Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board was constituted. Therefore, the rationale for regularisation by the Board while there was no systamised recruitment mechanism, cannot inure any benefit to respondents No.3 to 5. 10. The further contention is that the law laid down by the Apex Court in Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 does not allow such regularisation. The question here, however, has a different angle. It has to be considered whether omission on the part of the petitioner to include names of respondents No.3 to 5 in the list prepared following Annexure A1 judgment shall have the effect of denying them regularisation. All daily wage employees, who put in 5 years of service as on 31.03.2012, except respondents No.3 to 5, were regularised. The contention that respondents No.3 to 5 are not temple employees and they could not be equated with 28 temporary employees whose services were regularised earlier cannot be countenanced. 11. As early as in June 2005, the Travancore Devaswom Board took over the Sabari Estate where the said respondents were working on temporary basis in different posts. Earlier the Estate was under the administration of the Plantation Corporation, a Government establishment. After taking over also, respondents No.3 to 5 continued their service and thereby they became the employees on the payroll of the Travancore Devaswom Board. The claim that the said respondents commenced service in the year 2006 is beyond dispute. Earlier the Estate was under the administration of the Plantation Corporation, a Government establishment. After taking over also, respondents No.3 to 5 continued their service and thereby they became the employees on the payroll of the Travancore Devaswom Board. The claim that the said respondents commenced service in the year 2006 is beyond dispute. When they claimed parity in right which other 28 employees of the Travancore Devaswom Board obtained in the matter of regularisation, subsequent constitution of the Devaswom Recruitment Board cannot be a decisive factor. It is especially so when their regularisation in 2012 along with others, did not happen only on account of the omission on the part of the Travancore Devaswom Board. 12. In the above factual matrix, the law in Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 as has been dilated by the Apex Court in Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine 3826 assumes importance. The extent, ambit and applicability of the principles of law laid down in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 were explained in Jaggo 2024 SCC OnLine 3826 Appellants No.1, 2, 3, and 5 before the Tribunal were the appellants in Jaggo 2024 SCC OnLine 3826. Their plea for regularisation was declined by the Tribunal. That order was confirmed by the High Court, for which the principles in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 were extensively placed reliance on. 13. The appellants in Jaggo 2024 SCC OnLine 3826 were originally engaged by the Central Water Commission on part-time/ad hoc terms. Appellant No.1 was appointed as a Safaiwali in 1993, appellant No.2 as a Safaiwali in 1998, and appellant No.3 as a Safaiwali in 1999. Appellant No.4 was appointed in 2004 as a Khallasi. Before the Apex Court, the employer opposed their claim for regularisation on the grounds that: (i) the appellants were engaged purely on a part-time, contractual basis, and never intended to be permanent or full-time; (ii) they were appointed not against any sanctioned posts; (iii) they did not meet the conditions necessary for regularisation as laid down in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 . (iv) they were not eligible to be considered for regular appointments as they did not possess the minimum educational qualifications required for the posts; (v) housekeeping and maintenance works were outsourced as part of a legitimate administrative policy aimed at improving efficiency which cannot be interfered with by the courts; and (vi) the appellants by virtue of long-standing temporary or part-time engagement did not acquire any vested right to be regularised. 14. The Apex Court turned down the aforementioned contentions and observed as follows: “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 regularisation. In a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar and others v. Union of India and others, (2024) 1 S.C.R. 1230 , it was held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularisation 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. 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.” 15. The Apex Court proceeded to hold in Jaggo 2024 SCC OnLine 3826 that while the judgment in Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhering to Constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between 'illegal' and 'irregular' appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 to argue that no vested right for regularisation exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularisation is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. 16. The said principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 . Having considered the law in Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 as explained in Jaggo 2024 SCC OnLine 3826 the Apex Court held as follows: “14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. Having considered the law in Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 as explained in Jaggo 2024 SCC OnLine 3826 the Apex Court held as follows: “14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are "illegal" and those that are "irregular," the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor-based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices.” 17. We noticed that a Division Bench of this Court followed in the matter of regularisation the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned decisions in Sabu C. v. Union of India, 2025 KHC OnLine 346. The learned Senior Government Pleader, however, invited our attention to Official Liquidator v. Dayand (2008) 10 SCC 1 and submitted that the tendency to deviate from the law in Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 has been deprecated by the Three Judge Bench and hence the aforementioned decisions of the Apex Court, which are by Benches of two Judges cannot be placed reliance on. 18. In Dayand (2008) 10 SCC 1 the question was concerning regularisation of the persons employed/engaged by the Official Liquidators pursuant to the sanction accorded by the Court under the Special Rules, who were described as company-paid staff. There were two categories of employees in the offices of the Official Liquidators: (i) employees appointed against the posts sanctioned by the Government of India and recruited in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Rules and (ii) persons employed/engaged by the Official Liquidators. The doctrine of equality was the essential ground urged in support of the plea for regularisation. The Three Judge Bench took into consideration the long-drawn litigation and the consequent plight to which the employees were put to, and held as follows; “(i) the respondents are not entitled to absorption against the sanctioned posts in Group C of the Department of Company Affairs, Government of India, as of right. The Three Judge Bench took into consideration the long-drawn litigation and the consequent plight to which the employees were put to, and held as follows; “(i) the respondents are not entitled to absorption against the sanctioned posts in Group C of the Department of Company Affairs, Government of India, as of right. (ii) The 1999 Scheme does not suffer from any legal or constitutional infirmity insofar as it provides for absorption of the company paid staff only to the extent of 50% vacancies in direct recruitment quota of Group C posts. (iii) The decision taken by the Government of India to reduce the number of posts in direct recruitment quota and consequential abolition of posts in the Department of Company Affairs is not vitiated by arbitrariness or violation of the doctrine of equality or mala fides. (iv) The doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked for sustaining the directions given by the High Courts of Calcutta and Delhi for creation of supernumerary posts to facilitate absorption of all company paid staff in the regular cadres. (v) The respondents are not entitled to have their pay fixed in the regular scales and other monetary benefits at par with regular employees working under the Official Liquidators.” 19. Of course,the three-Judge Bench held that the law laid down by the Apex Court in Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 cannot be diluted by Benches of lesser strength. The modification attempted to be brought about by a Bench of two-Judges of the Apex Court in U.P. State Electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey, (2007) 11 SCC 92 was held to be obiter dictum as well. But the 1999 Scheme evolved by the Government for absorption of the company-paid staff only to the extent of 50% vacancies in the direct recruitment quota of Group C post, was held to be not unconstitutional. As such it cannot be said that the ratio in Dayand (2008) 10 SCC 1 will stand in the way of considering the claim of respondents No. 3 to 5 herein. 20. The learned Senior Government Pleader further submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in Rajani P. Kuttan v. State of Kerala, 2021 (6) KHC 513 the claim of temporary employees in the Travancore Devaswom Board for regularisation was declined holding that they would not satisfy the parameters laid down in Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 . 20. The learned Senior Government Pleader further submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in Rajani P. Kuttan v. State of Kerala, 2021 (6) KHC 513 the claim of temporary employees in the Travancore Devaswom Board for regularisation was declined holding that they would not satisfy the parameters laid down in Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 . The extent of application of the view in Rajani P. Kuttan 2021 (6) KHC 513 to this decision has to be considered in the light of the principle evolved by the Apex Court in Jaggo 2024 SCC OnLine 3826 and Shripal 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 where the law in Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 was explained. In Jaggo 2024 SCC OnLine 3826 and Shripal 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 a distinction between irregular and illegal appointments was drawn and in the case of temporary employees appointed in an irregular manner, but not in an illegal manner, and having put in services for decades, it was held that their claim for regularisation needs consideration. 21. The facts of this case have another peculiarity. 28 other employees of the Travancore Devaswom Board who were placed similar to respondents No.3 to 5 were earlier regularised as per the order of this Court. Therefore, the aspect of violation of the principle of parity as against respondents No.3 to 5 also very much arises. 22. 28 daily wage employees regularised as allowed in Annexure A1 judgement were daily wagers, who completed five years of service as on 31.03.2012. Names of additional respondents No.3 to 5 were inadvertently omitted to be included in that list. Additional respondents No.3 to 5 were in the services of the Travancore Devaswom Board and had completed five years of service as on 31.03.2012. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, including the manner of recruitment then in prevalent in the Travancore Devaswom Board, permission was accorded to the Travancore Devaswom Board to regularise the daily wage employees who had completed five years of service as on 31.03.2012. Subsequently, only the Devaswom Recruitment Board was constituted. Therefore, the initial appointment of additional respondents No.3 to 5 cannot be said to be illegal, but might be irregular. 23. What emerges from the facts and law discussed above is that additional respondents No.3 to 5 are entitled to get their service regularised. Hence, this DBA is allowed. Subsequently, only the Devaswom Recruitment Board was constituted. Therefore, the initial appointment of additional respondents No.3 to 5 cannot be said to be illegal, but might be irregular. 23. What emerges from the facts and law discussed above is that additional respondents No.3 to 5 are entitled to get their service regularised. Hence, this DBA is allowed. Permission is accorded to the Travancore Devaswom Board to regularise the services of additional respondents No.3 to 5.