JUDGMENT : ANU SIVARAMAN, J. Writ Appeals No.705/2024, 629/2024, 711/2024 and 742/2024 are filed by the University of Agricultural Science ('University' for short) challenging the common order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions No.10632/2021 c/w. 4553/2022, 27469/2023 and 27478/2023. Contempt of Court Case No.646/2024 is filed alleging willful disobedience of the Order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27478/2023. 2. We have heard Shri V. Lakshminarayana, learned Senior Counsel as instructed by Shri. Vikram Balaji, learned advocate and Shri. I. Tharanath Poojary, learned senior counsel as instructed by Smt. Veena T.N, learned advocate appearing for the private parties; Shri Sachin B.S., and Shri M. Sreenivasa, learned counsel appearing for the University; and Shri Reuben Jacob, learned Additional Advocate General along with Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the appellants are that the respondents are long-serving daily-wage workers of the University of Agricultural Science ('University' for short) – many of whom have completed 30–35 years of service. The workers sought for regularisation on completion of 10 years of service in parity with others who were already regularised, and non-discrimination in pay and service benefits. 4. The University in its 379 th meeting dated 05.01.2019, resolved to regularise 128 daily-wage employees including some of the writ petitioners. However, the Government by letter dated 18.02.2019, withheld approval to the Board’s decision and later rejected the regularisation proposal, stating that the employees were covered under the Welfare Act and not were eligible for absorption. Consequently, following the Government’s refusal, the Board in its 386 th meeting on 01.09.2020, withdrew the earlier proposal for regularisation. 5. It was further contended that 171 daily wage employees including some of the private respondents had already been granted all statutory benefits under the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees' Welfare Act, 2012 ('Welfare Act, 2012' for short) and that they are not entitled to seek regularisation. 6. The learned Single Judge noted that the Board of the University on several occasions had recommended the regularisation of the daily-wage employees. However, the sole impediment cited by the University was the absence of consent from the State Government. The learned Single Judge concluded that such consent was unnecessary inasmuch as the financial burden was to be borne entirely by the University. However, the sole impediment cited by the University was the absence of consent from the State Government. The learned Single Judge concluded that such consent was unnecessary inasmuch as the financial burden was to be borne entirely by the University. It was also noted that the Board possessed the statutory authority to create non-teaching posts. 7. It was held that the action of the Government in bringing 171 employees under the purview of the Welfare Act amounted to deemed creation of sanctioned posts. The bar on regularisation as laid down in The Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 was not attracted in the present case. The writ petition was allowed, directing the University to regularise the services of 128 daily-wage workers. 8. The contempt proceedings against the appellants stem from the non-compliance of orders in W.P. No. 27478/2023 directing the University to regularise the respondents. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in W.A.No.711/2024 and W.A.No.742/2024 that the appellants herein were the petitioners in W.P.No.27469/2023 and 27478/2023, respectively. They were persons who had already been regularised in service by the University. It is submitted that on 13.08.2009 in Annexure 'F' Order produced in W.P.No.10632/2021 was passed, regularising the services of K.P. Raju and seven others. However, the claim made by the appellants for regularisation was rejected on 23.10.2008, which led to filing of W.Ps.No.11642-78/2012. By Order dated 20.04.2012, this Court directed the University to consider the case of the appellants for regularisation without reference to the impugned endorsement dated 23.10.2008. When the said direction was not implemented, CCC No.2694-2708/2013 was filed. During the pendency of that proceeding, the University submitted a modified order of regularisation by which the services of the appellants were regularised. Recording the said order of regularisation, the contempt proceedings were closed on 22.06.2014. Thereafter, a review petition was filed before this Court, which was also rejected on 02.02.2016. 10. It is submitted that it was thereafter that the request of the 128 workers for regularisation was considered by the University and the University recommended such regularisation. However, the State Government passed an order dated 18.02.2019 directing the University to keep the resolution in abeyance and to reconsider the resolution. 10. It is submitted that it was thereafter that the request of the 128 workers for regularisation was considered by the University and the University recommended such regularisation. However, the State Government passed an order dated 18.02.2019 directing the University to keep the resolution in abeyance and to reconsider the resolution. On 04.06.2019, the matter was reconsidered and the University reiterated that the regularisation of 128 employees was to be effected without casting any financial burden on the State Government. Further communications occurred, however, the State refused to grant permission for regularisation on the ground that the benefit of the Welfare Act had been extended to the employees and that there was no sanction post to accommodate them. The 128 employees raised the question of parity and contended that earlier batches of identically situated employees had been regularised. As an answer to the said contention, it is submitted that the orders of regularisation of Sujatha Devi and 16 others were recalled. 11. The learned Single Judge considered the contentions advanced and found that the University had taken a clear decision to regularise the services of the employees and that no Government sanction for creation of the posts is required. The orders withdrawing the regularisation of Sujatha Devi and others was quashed and it was declared that the regularisation orders shall stand restored and all consequential monetary benefits shall be paid to the said employees within two months from date of receipt of the copy of the order. 12. In the appeals, the appellants contend that the learned Single Judge disregarded the mandatory requirements of Section 13(2)(XIII) of the University of Agricultural Sciences in Bangalore Act, 2010 ['University Act' for short] which allows for the creation of teaching and non- teaching posts only with prior Government approval. They contend that the judgment of the learned Single Judge ignores Section 3 of the Welfare Act, which only permits daily-wage employees, once notified under the Act, to continue on daily wages until the age of 60 and does not authorise their regularisation. 13. Despite the Act, the learned Single Judge assumed that sanctioned posts existed for the 128 daily- wage employees and treated their continuation under the Welfare Act as equivalent to the creation of posts. 13. Despite the Act, the learned Single Judge assumed that sanctioned posts existed for the 128 daily- wage employees and treated their continuation under the Welfare Act as equivalent to the creation of posts. It is submitted that the Government never created or sanctioned any Group-D posts for these workers and the finding of "deemed creation of posts" is completely unwarranted and unjustified. 14. The appellants further submitted that the respondent workers did not produce any appointment orders showing that they were initially appointed against sanctioned posts by a competent authority. Their engagement was purely on a daily-wage basis. Hence, their case squarely falls within the bar laid down in Umadevi 's (supra), and reaffirmed in Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2023) 3 SCC 639 , which prohibited regularsation of workers who were never appointed to sanctioned posts. 15. Shri B.S.Sachin, learned counsel appearing for the Univeristy in W.A.No.711/2024 and W.A.No.742/2024 has placed the following decisions:- • M.P.Housing Board & Anr. v. Manoj Shrivastava, reported in 2006(2) Supreme 354 ; • Union of India & Ors. v. Ilmo Devi & Anr., reported in 2021 0 Supreme (SC) 596; and • Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., reported in 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 96; 16. Shri M. Sreenivasa, learned counsel appearing for the University in W.A.No.629/2024 has placed the following decisions:- • Smt. Sujata Devi R. and others v. Shri Bharathlal Meena and others decided on 17.01.2014 in C.C.C.No.2694-2708/2013; • Smt. Sujata Devi R. and others v. Shri Bharathlal Meena and others decided on 23.04.2015 in C.C.C.No.2694-2708/2013; and • Smt. Sujata Devi R. and others v. Shri Bharathlal Meena and others decided on 21.08.2013 in C.C.C.No.633-647/2013. 17. Shri V. Lakshminarayana, learned senior counsel appearing for the private parties has brought to our notice the orders passed by the University regularising the services of identically placed employees. It is submitted that since the employees were continuing without any break for more than 30 years, the contention that the posts are not sanctioned is only a hyper-technical plea raised to deny the benefit of regularisation to the petitioners while identically placed persons have already been granted all benefits of regularisation. It is submitted that since the employees were continuing without any break for more than 30 years, the contention that the posts are not sanctioned is only a hyper-technical plea raised to deny the benefit of regularisation to the petitioners while identically placed persons have already been granted all benefits of regularisation. It is submitted that in several identical cases, the benefit of regularisation had been extended to persons who had completed 10 years of service after 01.07.1984 and such directions of the Court had been given full effect to. It is contended that since the writ petitioners were admittedly fully qualified and had been carrying out the duties in the posts for three decades and more, there is absolutely no bona fides in the contention that the posts are not available to accommodate them. It is further contended that then question of the power of the University to create administrative posts and to appoint persons to such posts has also been specifically decided with reference to the statutory provisions and no interference whatsoever is called for. 18. It is further submitted that their regularisation is justified based on long years of service as well as parity with similarly placed employees already regularised by the State and the University. Further, this position has been upheld and confirmed by the Apex Court in Malathi Das 's case (Supra). It is submitted that the University itself regularised the respondent workers through an order dated 22.07.2024 pursuant to interim directions, and the State has regularised numerous comparable employees in other departments. 19. It is contended that objections based on financial constraints, sanctioned posts, cut-off dates are misplaced, especially since the University possesses statutory power to create posts and had already resolved to regularise employees through its own funds. The withdrawal of earlier regularisation orders by the University is alleged to be improper. On these grounds, the respondents seek confirmation of the regularisation order and dismissal of the appeals. 20. Shri V. Lakshminarayana, learned senior counsel appearing for the private parties in W.A.No.705/2024 has placed the following decisions:- • K.P.Raju & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, by order dated 31.03.2003 passed in W.P.Nos.13858-13857/2000; • Smt. Premakala Shetty v. The Common Cadre Committee & Anr., by order dated 12.11.1998 passed in W.P.Nos.1338/1998 connected matters; • State of Karnataka & Ors. 20. Shri V. Lakshminarayana, learned senior counsel appearing for the private parties in W.A.No.705/2024 has placed the following decisions:- • K.P.Raju & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, by order dated 31.03.2003 passed in W.P.Nos.13858-13857/2000; • Smt. Premakala Shetty v. The Common Cadre Committee & Anr., by order dated 12.11.1998 passed in W.P.Nos.1338/1998 connected matters; • State of Karnataka & Ors. v. T.B.Manjunath & Ors., reported in ILR 2003 KAR 2827; • The State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Revanna S., by order dated 09.07.2019 passed in C.A.No.5292/2019; • Jivanlala v. Pravin Krishna & Ors., reported in (2016) 15 SCC 747; • Dhananjoy Karmakar v. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in (2015) 17 SCC 504; • Malathi Das & Ors. v. Suresh & Ors., reported in (2014) 13 SCC 249 ; • Sri. C.G.Jagadeesh v. The State of Karnataka & Ors., by order dated 23.04.2014 passed in W.P.No.54284/2013 (S-KAT); • The State of Karnataka v. Sri. R.Jagadeesh & Ors., by order dated 13.11.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.45/2013 & 3477-3482/2013 (S-RES); • Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in 2025 SCC online SC 1735; • Raman Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., by order dated 03.07.2023 passed in SLP(C).No.7898/2020; • Ravi Verma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., by order dated 13.03.2018 passed in C.A.Nos.2795- 2796/2018; • Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka & Ors., by order dated 19.07.2019 passed in W.P.No.44548/2016 (S- RES); • Sri. Nagendra S.G. & Ors. v. Dr. K.C.Veeranna & Ors., by order dated 30.04.2024 passed in C.A. No.5586/2024; • The State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Mayanna Gowda M. & Ors., by passed in SLP(C)No.42180/2024; • Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826; • The State of Karnataka & Anr. v. K.Bhaghyalakshmi and Ors., by order dated 29.10.2013 passed in W.P.Nos.15716/2013; • The Karnataka Casual & Daily v. The State of Karnataka & Ors., by order dated 22.09.1998 passed in W.P. Nos.12610/1993 & 28248-449/1998; • The State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Shri Ningappa Gudagi, by order dated 24.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.1180/2024 (S-REG); • Union of India & Ors. v. Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors., reported in (2019) 4 SCC 290 ; • Nihal Singh & Ors. v. Shri Ningappa Gudagi, by order dated 24.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.1180/2024 (S-REG); • Union of India & Ors. v. Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors., reported in (2019) 4 SCC 290 ; • Nihal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in (2013) 14 SCC 65; • Om Prakash Banerjee v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., by order dated 19.05.2023 passed in C.A.No.4210/2023; • State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Khatoonbi, by order dated 27.03.2019 passed in W.P.No.107600/2017 (S- KAT); • The Principal Secretary & Ors. v. Smt. Vijayamma, by order dated 30.10.2019 passed in W.P.No.4282/2012 (S-RES); • P. Junjappa v. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, by order dated 17.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.6238/2020 (S-KSAT) connected matters; • The State of Karnataka & Anr. v. M.A.Biradar & Anr., by order dated 04.09.2024 passed in W.P.No.100387/2023 (S-REG); • Venkataraju V v. State of Karnataka, by order dated 10.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.4268/2022 (S-KSAT); • Sri. Nagendra S.G. & Ors. v. Dr. K.C.Veeranna & Ors., by order dated 30.04.2024 passed in C.A. No.5586/2024; • Karnataka Veterinary Animal & Fisheries Sciences University v. Someshwara and Ors., by order dated 16.10.2024 passed in C.A.No.5586/2024; • The Chief Secretary & Ors. v. Mahedevappa, by passed in SLP (C) NO.4469/2022; • Sri. Mahadevappa v. The Chief Secretary & Ors., by order dated 17.11.2022 passed in CCC No.100149/2021; • The State of Karnataka v. A.K.Vasantha & Ors., by order dated 13.01.2003 passed in W.P.No.793- 796/2003(S-KAT); • Sri. Venkataraju V. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., by order dated 10.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.4268/2022 (S-KSAT); • The State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Shri Ningappa Gudagi, by order dated 24.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.1180/2024 (S-REG); • The Secretary to Govt. v. Dr. Parappa Shankarappa, by order dated 30.09.1999 passed in W.A.Nos.968/1998, 108/1986 & 1108-29/1999; and • The University of Agricultural Sciences v. Dr. Digambarappa & Ors., by order dated 24.06.2022 passed in W.A.Nos.100263-100264/2022 (S-RES). 21. Shri. I. Tharanath Poojary, learned senior counsel appearing for the private parties in W.A.No.711/2024 and W.A.No.742/2024 would submit that in view of the fact that the private respondents had been regularised in service after considering all relevant aspects of the matter, the withdrawal of the regularisation after 5 years was completely unjustified. 21. Shri. I. Tharanath Poojary, learned senior counsel appearing for the private parties in W.A.No.711/2024 and W.A.No.742/2024 would submit that in view of the fact that the private respondents had been regularised in service after considering all relevant aspects of the matter, the withdrawal of the regularisation after 5 years was completely unjustified. It is further contended that the fact that their services had been regularised, had been submitted before this Court in a pending Contempt of Court Case and the Contempt of Court Case had been closed recording the said submission. Thereafter, a review petition was attempted which was also rejected. It is submitted that in the above circumstances, the order recalling the regularisation amounts to a contempt in the face of the Court and cannot be sustained under any circumstances. 22. Shri I. Tharanath Poojary, learned senior counsel appearing for Workmen in W.A.No.711/2024 and Complainants in C.C.C.No.646/2024, has placed the following decisions:- • K.P.Raju and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., by order dated 31.03.2003 passed in W.P.Nos.13858- 13867/2000; • Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in 2025 SCC online SC 1735; • State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. v. District Bar Association, reported in (2017) 3 SCC 410 ; • Malathi Das and Others v. Suresh and Others, reported in (2014) 13 SCC 249 ; • The State of Karnataka & Anr. V. Revanna S., by order dated 09.07.2019 passed in C.A.No.5292/2019; • Hanumantharayappa V. and Ors. v. Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Karnataka and Another., reported in 2022 SCC online KAR 553; • Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 ; • Dharwad Distt. P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association & ors. v. State of Karnataka & ors., reported in (1990) 2 SCC 396 ; • Smt. Sujatha Devi R., v. Bharathlal Meena & Ors., by order dated 17.01.2014 passed in CCC.2694/2013; and • State of Karnataka & Ors. v. M.L.Kesari & Ors., reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247 . 23. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the only question that requires examination in the instant case is whether the judgment of the learned Single Judge which directed the regularisation service of the writ petitioners, who had admittedly been working for more than 30 years in the University requires any interference. 24. 23. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the only question that requires examination in the instant case is whether the judgment of the learned Single Judge which directed the regularisation service of the writ petitioners, who had admittedly been working for more than 30 years in the University requires any interference. 24. The ground on which the request for regularisation was rejected by the Government was that the posts were not created after obtaining sanction from the Government. The learned Single Judge, considering the contentions advanced, as also the judgments of the Apex Court, found that the very fact that the service of the petitioners had been continued without break for more than 30 years would show that the posts are in existence and the University cannot function without the services of the writ petitioners. 25. Further, relying on Sections 7, 10, and 11 of the University Act, it was found that the substantive provision of the enactment confers power on the University to create the posts and in the light of the proposal forwarded by the University, which specifically stated that the entire expenditure would be borne by the University, no sanction is required for the creation of course or the regularisation of the employees. 26. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the present arguments advanced by the University are to the effect of that the Government is required to fund the expenditure of regularisation. It is submitted that the Government has no objection to the University regularising the services of the writ petitioners provided the Government is not mulcted with the financial liability of such regularisation. However, it is contended that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the grant of the benefits under the Welfare Act amounts to "deemed sanctioning of posts" will have unforeseen consequences in other cases where posts do not exist and that the said finding should be vacated. 27. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the appeals are preferred only by the University and no appeal is filed by the Government. It is clearly stated by the learned Additional Advocate General that the Government has no objection to the regularisation if the University takes on the financial responsibility. 27. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the appeals are preferred only by the University and no appeal is filed by the Government. It is clearly stated by the learned Additional Advocate General that the Government has no objection to the regularisation if the University takes on the financial responsibility. We notice that the University itself had repeatedly raised the request for regularization of the petitioners and similarly situated employees stating that their services are required and that they are fully qualified to hold their respective posts. The learned Single Judge clearly held that there is power in the University to create administrative non-teaching posts which are required for conduct of the University. This was the contention of the University as well. 28. The writ petitioners are admittedly persons employed in Group-C and Group-D posts and whose services have been continued without a break for more than 30 years. The proposals forwarded by the University would specifically show that they had intended to regularise the services of the employees and to meet the expenses of such regularisation from the funds available with University. 29. In Dharam Singh 's case (supra), the Apex Court observed that:- "When public institutions depend, day after day, on the same hands to perform permanent tasks, equity demands that those tasks are placed on sanctioned posts, and those workers are treated with fairness and dignity. The controversy before us is not about rewarding irregular employment. It is about whether years of ad hoc engagement, defended by shifting excuses and pleas of financial strain, can be used to deny the rights of those who have kept public institutions running. We resolve it by insisting that the public employment should be organised with fairness, reasoned decision-making, and respect for the dignity of work." It was further held that refusal to sanction posts cannot be immune from judicial scrutiny for arbitrariness. It was emphasized that State cannot balance budgets on those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. In Jaggo 's case (supra), the Apex Court has held at paragraphs No.20 and 27 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. In Jaggo 's case (supra), the Apex Court has held at paragraphs No.20 and 27 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 regularization. In a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, 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…” 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." 30. In the instant case, the fact that the writ petitioners were working without break in non-teaching posts in Group C and D under the University is not in dispute. The learned Single Judge had considered the contentions advanced and had examined the provisions of the University Act and held that the substantial power was conferred to the University to create non-teaching posts. This Court in The State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Revanna S., by order dated 09.07.2019 passed in C.A.No.5292/2019 , has clearly held that grant of benefits under the Welfare Act, 2012 cannot be a reason to deny regularization in deserving cases. 31. The judgments relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners would apply with all force to the facts of these cases. It is clear that the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi 's case (supra) cannot be made an instrument of oppression to deny regularisation after extracting service for decades on end. Further, we are also in agreement with the proposition that the grant of benefits under the Welfare Act cannot be a ground to deny the substantial relief of regularisation. 32. We notice that the real import of the judgment of the Apex Court in Uma Devi's case (supra), was that the State and public authorities should not facilitate back door entry into public employment by-passing the tenets of fairness and equal opportunity in public employment and the principles of merit and reservation. 32. We notice that the real import of the judgment of the Apex Court in Uma Devi's case (supra), was that the State and public authorities should not facilitate back door entry into public employment by-passing the tenets of fairness and equal opportunity in public employment and the principles of merit and reservation. The Apex Court has repeatedly held that the judgment of the Constitution Bench cannot be used as a weapon of oppression by the very same authorities who had initially made the daily wage appointments without following due procedure, to deny equal pay and service benefits to employees whose services have been utilized, without break, for decades. The fact that benefits under the Welfare Act, 2012 have been extended to the employees can also not stand in the way of their regularisation in view of the clear stand repeatedly taken by the University. 33. However, we make it clear that the finding that the grant of benefits under the Welfare Act amounts to grant of Government Sanction for creation of posts cannot be a sound legal proposition. The said observation is vacated. We hold that the hyper-technical contentions that the posts have not been created with Government Sanction cannot stand in the way of regularization of the writ petitioners services. 34. In the above circumstances, the appeals fail, the same are accordingly dismissed . The directions of the learned Single Judge shall be complied with, within a period of three months. CCC No. 646/2024 is accordingly closed with liberty to the complainants to reopen the CCC, if the directions are not fully complied with, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Pending interlocutory applications shall stand disposed of in all the cases.