ORDER : NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. Petitioners were appointed as temporary Para-Medical Staff on ad hoc basis in Respondent No.1 - Company. All the Petitioners are fully qualified to hold the posts against which they were selected as per recruitment rules. The appointments of the Writ Petitioners with details are as under: SI.No Name & Designation Mode of Recruitment Date of joining Qualification 1 G. Durga Prasad Temporary Medical Technician (Dental) Campus selection/application 25.07.2005 Diploma in Dental Hygienist 2 Y. Malathi Temporary Nursing Assistant Employment Exchange 23.05.2007 Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery 3 V. Madhavi Temporary Nursing Assistant -do- 11.08.2006 -do- 4 Nagarajeswarulu Temporary Eye Technician -do- 30.01.2007 Diploma in Ophthalmic Assistants 5 M. Sowjanya Rani Temporary Nursing Assistant Internal Circular 13.05.2009 Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery 6 G. Manjula Temporary Dresser Munaga Pandurangaiah Application 16.04.2010 Health Worker. 7 Munga Pandurangaih Temporary Dresser Apprentice 11.03.2009 Multi Purpose Health Worker 8 M Shalini Temporary Nursing Assistant Internal Circulation 13.05.2009 -do- 9 O. Sumalatha Temporary E.C.G Technician Employmen t Exchange 09.08.2012 ECG Technician 10 K. Syamala Devi Temporary Dresser Campus selection/application 21.02.2008 Health Worker. 11 Y. Karunamma Temporary Dresser -do- 16.04.2010 Multi Purpose Health Worker 12 B. Nancharamma Temporary Dresser -do- 16.04.2010 Health Worker. 13 A. Mogulamma Temporary Dresser -do- 16.04.2010 Multi Purpose Health Worker 14 M. Anithamma Temporary Dresser -do- 11.03.2009 -do- 15 M. Jogulamma Temporary Dresser -do- 16.04.2010 -do- 16 Burka Sekhar Temporary X-Ray Technician Employment Exchange 12.03.2012 Certificate In Radiographic Asst. Course. 17 G. V. Shiva Rao Temporary E.?.? Technician. Internal Circular 01.02.2010 Nursing Assistant 18 G. Solomon Raju Temporary E.C.G. Technician Employment Exchange 25.01.2012 Certificate in ECG Technician Course 19 Saini Dhanaprasad Temporary OT Technician Campus selection/application 01.01.2010 Dip. in Medical Sterilization Management and Operation Theatre Technician Course 20 Rajakumar Temporary Dresser Apprentice/Application 21.02.2008 Multi Purpose Health Worker 21 P. Raju Temporary Lab Technician Campus selection /application 07.02.2013 B.Sc. M.L.T 22 G Sateesh Temporary OT Technician -do- 17.12.2007 Dip. in Operation Theatre Technology 23 Sudhakar Kampati Temporary Dresser -do- 24.03.2009 Multi Purpose Health Worker. in Medical Sterilization Management and Operation Theatre Technician Course 20 Rajakumar Temporary Dresser Apprentice/Application 21.02.2008 Multi Purpose Health Worker 21 P. Raju Temporary Lab Technician Campus selection /application 07.02.2013 B.Sc. M.L.T 22 G Sateesh Temporary OT Technician -do- 17.12.2007 Dip. in Operation Theatre Technology 23 Sudhakar Kampati Temporary Dresser -do- 24.03.2009 Multi Purpose Health Worker. 24 K. Sirisha Temporary Pharmacist Internal Circulation 24.04.2012 Bachelor of Pharmacy 25 B. Swarna Latha Temporary Pharmacist Campus selection/application 30.03.2009 Bachelor of Pharmacy 26 Chaitanya Kolluru Temporary Pharmacist Internal Circular 26.11.2012 Bachelor of Pharmacy 27 MangaliNagaraju Temporary Pharmacist Internal Circular 21.11.2012 Bachelor of Pharmacy 28 AvunuriSowjanya Temporary Pharmacist Internal Circular 24.11.2012 Bachelor of Pharmacy 29 S. Rajeswar Temporary Lab Technician Apprentice/Application 16.04.2010 Diploma in Lab. Technician 1.1. All the petitioners are Para-medical staff and that their services are essential. The mode of recruitment is through employment exchange/internal circulars/campus selection and applications. The selection was by written test as well as interview. Thus, the initial recruitment is neither illegal nor irregular, rather as per recruitment rules. It is pertinent to make a mention that appointment of petitioners on ad-hoc basis was initially for a fixed period of six months on consolidated honorarium. Thereafter, Petitioners are continuing to render services for years together. Respondent No.1 had indulged in unfair labour practices by adopting a peculiar method of giving an artificial gap of a week or so between the intervals of six months or an year sometimes and reappoint petitioners. The said act of Respondent No.1 is illegal under Item No. 10 of Unfair Labour Practices incorporated in the Fifth Schedule of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Hence, appointment and continuing them as ad-hoc employees is unreasonable, arbitrary and illegal. 1.2. The parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi , (2006) 4 SCC 1 are fully satisfied. Petitioners having come through employment exchange, campus selection/ internal circulars and satisfied the transparent criteria of the selection to the posts which they were holding years together have every right of legitimate expectation to get permanency in the respondent company. 1.3. Petitioners having come through employment exchange, campus selection/ internal circulars and satisfied the transparent criteria of the selection to the posts which they were holding years together have every right of legitimate expectation to get permanency in the respondent company. 1.3. Respondent Company entered into a settlement with petitioners on 01-03-2016 under Section 12 (3) of the 1947 Act whereby Respondents have agreed to continue petitioners on ad-hoc basis as per the existing terms and conditions, indicating that there is a need to continue the employment of petitioners indefinitely, as such appointing them on permanent basis is justified. The settlements dated 01-03-2016 and 10-03-2016 under Section 12 (3) would show that Respondent Company had agreed to pay all statutory benefits of ESI, EPF, Bonus/ SIP as per BHEL norms and also extended the benefit of housing accommodation to petitioners. They were also provided with medical insurance up to 2 lakhs. The fact that services of petitioners are unblemished, and in every case, the senior officers of Respondent Company have recommended extension of their services from time to time cannot be ignored while viewing the matter in its entirety. This Court in similar circumstances in Writ Petition No. 19136 of 2016, granted interim relief to petitioner therein by ordering Respondents not to remove her as long as there is need for engaging her services. 2. In the counter filed on behalf of respondents, it is stated Respondent No.1 is an integrated power plant equipment manufacturer and one of the largest engineering and manufacturing companies of its kind in India engaged in design, engineering, manufacture, construction, testing, commissioning and servicing of a wide range of products and services for core sectors of the economy, viz. Power, Transmission, Industry, Transportation (Railways), Renewable Energy, Oil & Gas, Water and Defence and with a widespread network of 17 Manufacturing Divisions, 2 Repair Units, 4 Regional Offices, 8 Service Centres, 4 Overseas Offices, 6 Joint Ventures and 15 Regional Marketing Centres. Respondent company has one of its manufacturing units situated at Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad. To take medical care of its employees and their dependent family members, it has established a Hospital in its Township where in-patient and out-patient treatments are provided. The hospital is 150-bedded, equipped with modern facilities and qualified medical professionals. Respondent company has one of its manufacturing units situated at Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad. To take medical care of its employees and their dependent family members, it has established a Hospital in its Township where in-patient and out-patient treatments are provided. The hospital is 150-bedded, equipped with modern facilities and qualified medical professionals. However, the management of respondent company, in order to cater to the immediate medical needs of the employees working in the company and their dependent family members, certain medical personnel were sought to be engaged on temporary basis and that is how Petitioners have come to being engaged by the Respondent Company. In this context, having agreed to work on temporary basis for fixed period/s with applicable terms and conditions, Petitioners cannot now ask that their services be made on regular basis and equally, it is misconceived that the rights that accrue to a citizen under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution are violated. Hence, the services rendered by the para-medical staff are not for core activities, hence, not essential in nature. Petitioners were engaged at different periods and are doing the work of paramedical staff. The mode of engagement being claimed by them is also not correct as mentioned supra. 2.1. Petitioners are engaged on ad hoc basis from time to time but it is not necessary that the Company should run on its own a mechanism or specific procedure to provide medical health to the employees. Petitioners having agreed to the terms and conditions of their tenure, cannot now turn around and say that management has violated their rights. The contention of Petitioners that since they were subjected to normal procedure of selection of both written test as well as viva voce, their engagement should not be treated as that of contract basis, is unfounded and the Judgment which they are referring to, has no bearing on the present lis. Petitioners cannot compare themselves with the employees that are recruited in the engineering section / Departments of the company. No right would accrue to them to be appointed on permanent basis or they can be treated on par with the employees that are appointed in Engineering or other Sections of the company. 2.2. Petitioners cannot compare themselves with the employees that are recruited in the engineering section / Departments of the company. No right would accrue to them to be appointed on permanent basis or they can be treated on par with the employees that are appointed in Engineering or other Sections of the company. 2.2. The settlement entered upon would not confer any right on Petitioners for getting appointed on regular basis and on the other hand, it would confirm that petitioners have agreed the terms and conditions to be continued on temporary basis. Further, by conferring the benefits such as ESI, EPF, etcetera, no right for permanent appointment would accrue to Petitioners. Thus, their contentions are wholly untenable. Equally in Ground No.7, they state about the unblemished service and the recommendations of the officers for their continuation. As an employee, whether on ad hoc basis or permanent, they have to work without blemish and equally, the terms of their service would be governed by the Clauses of the agreement that has been entered but not on the basis of the recommendations of the seasoned officers. 2.3. In Ground No 9, Petitioners would try to compare themselves with Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 19136 of 2016 but the facts of the present case and the issues involved are entirely different and it has no bearing on the lis of the present Writ Petition. 3. Heard Sri Prabhakar Chikkudu, learned counsel on behalf of Sri T. Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Ch. Samson Babu, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents. 4. There is no quarrel to the fact that petitioners are temporary ad-hoc paramedical staff in Respondent Company between July 2005 and November 2012. Their appointments were made through employment exchange, internal circulars, campus selection and Applications followed by written tests and interviews. Hence, their initial recruitment was lawful and in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Respondent Company had indulged in unfair labour practices under Item No. 10 of the Fifth Schedule of the Act. The continued engagement of petitioners as ad-hoc employees for several years amounts to hostile discrimination, especially when similarly- placed employees were regularized after just two years of ad-hoc service. Thus, it is a clear case of discrimination on the part of Respondent No.1 in not regularising the appointments on permanent basis. The continued engagement of petitioners as ad-hoc employees for several years amounts to hostile discrimination, especially when similarly- placed employees were regularized after just two years of ad-hoc service. Thus, it is a clear case of discrimination on the part of Respondent No.1 in not regularising the appointments on permanent basis. Respondent Company entered into a settlement with petitioners on 01.03.2016 under Section 12 (3) of the 1947 Act, agreeing to continue their ad-hoc employment under existing terms. This clearly indicates a continued need for their services, thereby justifying their appointment on a permanent basis. The settlements dated 01.03.2016 and 10.03.2016 under Section 12 (3) would show that Respondent Company agreed to provide statutory benefits such as ESI, EPF, Bonus/SIP as per BHEL norms, along with housing accommodation and medical insurance up to 2 lakhs. Other benefits like wages and extended medical coverage were to be considered at the corporate level. However, petitioners are still denied of job security and regular pay scales, highlighting an attempt to exploit them by paying lower wages compared to permanent employees. 5. This Court, in order to adjudicate the present lis is relying upon the law laid down by this Court so also by the Hon'ble Apex Court. This Court in Writ Petition No. 173 of 2022 held that Petitioners, who admittedly satisfy the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of Uma Devi ’s case (supra) cannot be deprived of the right of regularization. Relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder:- “ 52. Normally, what is sought for pesach temporary employees when the uphold the Pope pharma is the issue of a return of mandamus directing the employer, the state of its instrumentalities to observe them in permanent service or to allow them to continue In this context the question arises whether a mandamus could be issued in favour of such person. At this juncture, it will be proper to refer to the decision of the constitution bench of this court in Rai Shivender Bahadur (Dr) v Governing Body of the Nalanda College. At this juncture, it will be proper to refer to the decision of the constitution bench of this court in Rai Shivender Bahadur (Dr) v Governing Body of the Nalanda College. That case a rose out of the refusal to prevent the repetition and they denied the principal of the college will stop this 4 felt that in order that mandamus may issue to compile the authorities to do something it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on the authority and the aggrieved party had a legal right under the statue or rule to enforce it. This classical position continues and a mandamus could not be issued in favour of the employees directing the garment to make them permanent sense the employees cannot show that they have an enforceable legal right to be permanently absorbed or that the state as a legal duty to make them permanent 53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa". R.N.Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and refer to in Para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for 10 years or more but without the intervention of orders of the court or tribunal regularisation of the salaries of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this court in that cases above referred to and in the light of this judgement. In that context, the union of India, the state governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regulate as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for 10 years or more duly sanction posts but not under cover of orders of the court or tribunal and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to full those vacant sanctioned posts that required to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wages are being now unemployed. The process must be set in motion within 6 months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub-judice, need not be reopened based on this judgement, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. 54. The process must be set in motion within 6 months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub-judice, need not be reopened based on this judgement, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. 54. It is also clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principal settled in this decision or in which direction running counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents." 6. It is apparent on the face of the record that petitioners are continuing their respective jobs for more than a decade. Though there was a settlement by the Labour authorities, Respondents did not act upon the same. Applying the aforesaid law, Petitioners are entitled to be appointed as Permanent employees. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is directly applicable to the case of Petitioners and thereby, they are entitled for appointments on permanent basis. The contention of Respondent Company is that Petitioners joined the employment knowing fully-well that their employment is temporary, now cannot turn around and demand for permanent appointment. This submission cannot be received. Continuation of Petitioners on ad-hoc basis is contra to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, mentioned supra. 7. In view of the discussion made above, the Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. 8. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.