JUDGMENT : JOYMALYA BAGCHI , J. 1. These writ petitions involve common questions of fact and law, hence, they are being disposed of by a common judgment and order. FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Brief factual matrix giving rise to these writ petitions are as follows: Re: WPA/39/2022 3. Pursuant to an advertisement issued in the local newspaper on 28th July, 2010 by Andaman Public Works Department (APWD) for filling up the post of Junior Engineers, the petitioners participated in the selection process comprising of a written test and interview. 4. Petitioners were successful in the selection process and were empanelled but were not employed in the APWD. On the other hand, by an offer letter dated 21st November, 2011 APWD proposed to engage them as engineers in the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) on a consolidated pay of Rs.15,000/- per month for a period of eleven months. 5. Pursuant thereto petitioners were engaged in various PRIs on a contractual basis at a consolidated remuneration for eleven months. Since then, petitioners are serving as Junior Engineers in various PRIs on a contractual basis for more than a decade. Re: WPA/40/2022 6. Pursuant to a Press Note issued on December 12, 2011 the Andaman and Nicobar Administration invited applications for filling up of the post of Surveyor, writ petitioner had applied and participated in the selection process comprising of written examination and interview. He was successful and was empanelled. 7. On 11th November, 2011 a decision was taken by the Zilla Parishad to appoint Junior Engineers and Surveyor on a contractual basis and accordingly request was made to APWD to furnish names of candidates for contractual employment. Pursuant thereto the petitioner was requested to appear before a Selection Committee for interview and was duly appointed on contractual basis as Surveyor in the Zilla Parishad on a consolidated monthly pay for a period of eleven months. Petitioner is still continuing to serve in such capacity for more than a decade. Re: WPA/90/2022 8. On 25th May, 2011, a decision was taken to appoint Junior Engineers on contractual basis at a consolidated monthly salary for eleven months in PRIs. Pursuant thereto, petitioners participated in walk-in-Interviews and had been appointed on various dates and are working as Junior Engineers in PRIs. Petitioner nos.1 to 4 have been working since August, 2013, petitioner nos. On 25th May, 2011, a decision was taken to appoint Junior Engineers on contractual basis at a consolidated monthly salary for eleven months in PRIs. Pursuant thereto, petitioners participated in walk-in-Interviews and had been appointed on various dates and are working as Junior Engineers in PRIs. Petitioner nos.1 to 4 have been working since August, 2013, petitioner nos. 5, 6, 7 and 9 since 2017 and petitioner no.8 has been working on a contractual basis since 2015. ARGUMENTS AT THE BAR: 9. Common grievance of the petitioners in all the writ petitions is that they had been appointed through a fair and open selection process to substantive posts and have been continuously working on a contractual basis for a considerable period of time save and except artificial breaks. 10. Relying on paragraph 53 in State of Kartanaka vs. Uma Devi,  (2006) 4 SCC1 and other authorities, Ms. Mitra and Mr. Ahammed vehemently argue that the petitioners are entitled to be regularised and paid salary equal to permanent employees discharging similar duties under the PRIs. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Chakraborty contends the writ petitions are not maintainable and the grievance of the petitioners, if any, is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, he contends petitioners had not been appointed against substantive posts but were appointed merely on contractual basis to render services to PRIs and are not entitled to the relief prayed for. FINDING WITH REASONS: A. Maintainability 12. With regard to the issue of maintainability, I note PRIs concerned had issued letters of appointments to the petitioner. Hence, they were appointed on a contractual basis in the service of the PRIs and not the Administration. 13. PRIs are distinct and independent from A & N Administration and any plea for regularisation in the service of the said PRIs cannot be said to be a ‘service matter’ relating to the service of the union falling within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Chakraborty regarding maintainability of the writ petition. B. Plea of regularisation 14. Coming to the plea of regularisation, petitioners in WPA/39/2022 and WPA/40/2022 contend that they have been working for more than a decade on a contractual basis. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Chakraborty regarding maintainability of the writ petition. B. Plea of regularisation 14. Coming to the plea of regularisation, petitioners in WPA/39/2022 and WPA/40/2022 contend that they have been working for more than a decade on a contractual basis. Perennial nature of the work and its necessity to the affairs of the PRIs is clearly evident from the continuous services rendered by them. Under such circumstances, they claim regularisation. Petitioners in WPA/90/2022 also contend they are working in similar manner for considerable periods. 15. More than a decade after the pronouncement in Uma Devi (supra) declaring contractual appointments in public posts unconstitutional, the Apex Court in Sheo Narain Nagar and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2018) 13 SCC 432 was constrained to observe the pernicious practice of temporary and adhoc appointments by public authorities/government was still continuing in gross breach of constitutional guarantees under Article 14, 16 and 39 (1) (d) of the constitution. The Bench held as follows:- “When we consider the prevailing scenario, it is painful to note that the decision in Umadevi(3) has not been properly understood and rather wrongly applied by various State Governments. We have called for the data in the instant case to ensure as to how many employees were working on contract basis or ad-hoc basis or daily-wage basis in different State departments. We can take judicial notice that widely aforesaid practice is being continued. Though this Court has emphasised that incumbents should be appointed on regular basis as per rules but new devise of making appointment on contract basis has been adopted, employment is offered on daily wage basis etc. in exploitative forms. This situation was not envisaged by Umadevi(3)4. The prime intendment of the decision was that the employment process should be by fair means and not by back door entry and in the available pay scale. That spirit of the Umadevi(3) has been ignored and conveniently overlooked by various State Governments/ authorities. We regretfully make the observation that Umadevi(3) has not be implemented in its true spirit and has not been followed in its pith and substance. It is being used only as a tool for not regularizing the services of incumbents. That spirit of the Umadevi(3) has been ignored and conveniently overlooked by various State Governments/ authorities. We regretfully make the observation that Umadevi(3) has not be implemented in its true spirit and has not been followed in its pith and substance. It is being used only as a tool for not regularizing the services of incumbents. They are being continued in service without payment of due salary for which they are entitled on the basis of Article 14, 16 read with Article 34 (1)(d) of the Constitution of India as if they have no constitutional protection as envisaged in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, from cradle to grave. In heydays of life they are serving on exploitative terms with no guarantee of livelihood to be continued and in old age they are going to be destituted, there being no provision for pension, retiral benefits etc. There is clear contravention of constitutional provisions and aspiration of down trodden class. They do have equal rights and to make them equals they require protection and cannot be dealt with arbitrarily. The kind of treatment meted out is not only bad but equally unconstitutional and is denial of rights. We have to strike a balance to really implement the ideology of Umadevi(3). Thus, the time has come to stop the situation where Umadevi(3) can be permitted to be flouted, whereas, this Court has interdicted such employment way back in the year 2006. The employment cannot be on exploitative terms, whereas Umadevi(3) laid down that there should not be back door entry and every post should be filled by regular employment, but a new device has been adopted for making appointment on payment of paltry system on contract/adhoc basis or otherwise. This kind of action is not permissible, when we consider the pith and substance of true spirit in Umadevi(3).” (Emphasis supplied) 16. In Vinod Kumar and others vs. Union of India and other, 2024 INSC 332 the Apex Court held the nature of employment cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment but must be viewed from the actual nature of employment as it had evolved over time, that is, whether the contractual appointments were through regular selection process mirroring regular appointments and the continuous service rendered by the contractual employees were equivalent to permanent employees. 17. 17. In Narendra Kumar Tiwari and others vs. State of Jharkhand and others, (2018) 8 SCC 238 the court emphasized the need for a pragmatic regularization policy in cases of irregular appointments in contradistinction to illegal appointments. 18. In Nihal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, (2013) 4 SCC 65 the court directed creation of sanctioned post for absorption of contractual employees who were rendering security services to various institutions. 19. On the other hand Mr. Chakraborty submits none of the petitioners were appointed against substantive posts. They were employed purely on a contractual basis to aid the PRIs. He also argued the petitioner being appointed on purely contractual basis to these institutions, cannot claim parity with the employees of APWD in service conditions. Referring to State of Rajasthan and others vs. Daya Lal and others, (2011) 2 SCC 429 and Union of India and others vs. Ilmo Devi and another, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 899  he submits that no mandamus can be issued to formulate a policy for regularization unless there are sanctioned posts to which appointments were made through open competitive process. 20. From the aforesaid facts and submissions at the bar, it appears that the petitioners have been working as contractual employees in various PRIs for considerable periods of time. In fact, the petitioners in WPA/39/2022 and WPA/40/2022 have been working for more than a decade. These petitioners were also selected through an open competitive process pursuant to advertisement issued by APWD. There is no dispute they had requisite qualifications for the respective posts. However, it has been strenuously argued that petitioners are not in the service of the Administration and no sanctioned post corresponding to their appointments exist in the PRIs. 21. It is the constitutional mandate that in matters of public employment, State is a model employer and ought to create sanctioned posts against work which is perennial in nature and to fill up such posts by permanent employees selected through open competitive process. In Umadevi(3) (supra) back door appointment of casual/temporary employees against sanctioned posts was held to be unconstitutional. It is the constitutional mandate that in matters of public employment, State is a model employer and ought to create sanctioned posts against work which is perennial in nature and to fill up such posts by permanent employees selected through open competitive process. In Umadevi(3) (supra) back door appointment of casual/temporary employees against sanctioned posts was held to be unconstitutional. The Bench made a distinction between illegal appointments vis-à-vis irregular appointments and held where employees were appointed through open competitive process, such appointments may be deemed as irregular if such employees have continuously served for a decade or more, the State shall undertake an one time measure for their regularisation against sanctioned posts. The ratio in Uma Devi(3) has been repeatedly reiterated in successive decisions of the Supreme Court and has crystallised into a wholesome shield against exploitative and unjust practices in public appointments. 22. The State ought to eschew the exploitative practice of contractual appointments to sanctioned posts and in the event employees are appointed on contractual basis to sanctioned posts through open competitive process and are continuously working for a decade or more, Courts may issue directions for regularisation/absorption/permanent continuance to uphold the equality clause under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution (see Daya Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 429 (para 12)). 23. I am no unmindful that these issues require meticulous examination of facts with regard to the existence of sanctioned post/ perennial nature of work, the selection process through which petitioners were appointed and the period for which they are working in the PRIs. This exercise is required to be undertaken by the authorities in the first place. In the event the authorities are satisfied with regard to the existence of the aforesaid prerequisites for regularization, a constitutional duty is cast upon them to remove the constitutional aberration of adhocism by formulating an appropriate policy for regularization of such employees. CONCLUSION: WPA/39/2022 24. Under such circumstances, I permit the petitioners, who are working as contractual employees in respondent Nos. 12 and 13/Zilla Parishads to make representations to the respective Zilla Parishads where they are employed within a month for regularisation in accordance with law. In the event, the representations are made, respondent no.7 (with regard to representations to respondent no. CONCLUSION: WPA/39/2022 24. Under such circumstances, I permit the petitioners, who are working as contractual employees in respondent Nos. 12 and 13/Zilla Parishads to make representations to the respective Zilla Parishads where they are employed within a month for regularisation in accordance with law. In the event, the representations are made, respondent no.7 (with regard to representations to respondent no. 12/Zilla Parishad) and respondent no.8 ( with regard to representations to respondent no.13/Zilla Parishad) shall after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners on the basis of the materials on record take a decision with regard to the following issues: (a) Whether the petitioners were appointed and/or are working against sanctioned posts; (b) Whether their appointments were pursuant to an open competitive process; (c) Whether they are continuously serving for a decade or more ignoring minor artificial breaks at the behest of the respondents; 25. The respondent nos.7 and 8 shall submit report on these issues to respondent no.2 and the said respondent after considering the report shall take a decision to formulate policy for regularisation of the successful petitioners against sanctioned posts in the service of Zilla Parishads concerned. The entire exercise shall be undertaken and completed within six months from the date of making representation. 26. I make it clear that I have not expressed any conclusive opinion with regard to aforesaid issues which shall be decided independently and in accordance with law by the respondent authorities. 27. Needless to mention the petitioners are working on contractual capacity for considerable periods of time. They shall continue to work in such capacity against consolidated monthly remuneration which shall be paid regularly. Any minor artificial break in service at the behest of the respondents shall be regularized and outstanding remuneration, if any, shall forthwith released. Till their representation for regularization is disposed of, the petitioners shall not be replaced by others contractual employees save and except in cases of proven misconduct. WPA/40/2022 28. Under such circumstances, I permit the petitioner, who is working as contractual employee in respondent No. 11, Zilla Parishad to make representation to the said Zilla Parishad within a month for regularisation in accordance with law. WPA/40/2022 28. Under such circumstances, I permit the petitioner, who is working as contractual employee in respondent No. 11, Zilla Parishad to make representation to the said Zilla Parishad within a month for regularisation in accordance with law. In the event, representation is made, respondent no.4 shall after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on the basis of the materials on record take a decision with regard to the following issues: (a) Whether the petitioner was appointed and/or is working against sanctioned posts; (b) Whether his appointment was pursuant to an open competitive process; (c) Whether he is continuously serving for a decade or more ignoring minor artificial breaks at the behest of the respondent; 29. The respondent no.4 shall submit a report on these issues to respondent no.2 and the said respondent after considering the report shall take a decision to formulate policy for regularisation of the successful petitioner against sanctioned posts in the service of Zilla Parishad concerned. The entire exercise shall be undertaken and completed within six months from the date of making representation. 30. I make it clear that I have not expressed any conclusive opinion with regard to aforesaid issues which shall be decided independently and in accordance with law by the respondent authorities. 31. Needless to mention the petitioner is working on contractual capacity for considerable periods of time. He shall continue to work in such capacity against consolidated monthly remuneration which shall be paid regularly. Till his representation for regularization is disposed of, the petitioner shall not be replaced by other contractual employee save and except in cases of proven misconduct. WPA/90/2022 32. I find none of the petitioners have worked even on a contractual basis for ten years. In para 53 of Uma Devi(3), the Supreme Court observed the State shall undertake an one time measure to regularise irregular appointments against sanctioned posts provided the appointments were through open competitive process and the said employees were working continuously for ten years or more. Admittedly the petitioners are working as contractual employees for less than ten years and do not qualify as per Uma Devi(3) for regularisation. Admittedly the petitioners are working as contractual employees for less than ten years and do not qualify as per Uma Devi(3) for regularisation. Accordingly, their plea for regularisation is premature and the writ petition is disposed of observing if the petitioners qualify for regularisation in light of the ratio in Uma Devi(3) in future it shall be opened for them to renew their prayer in accordance with law. 33. With these directions, the writ petitions being WPA/39/2022, WPA/40/2022 and WPA/90/2022 are accordingly disposed of. 34. CAN/3/2022, CAN/4/2022 in WPA/39/2022, CAN/1/2022, CAN/2/2022 in WPA/40/2022 and CAN/1/2022 in WPA/90/2022 are also disposed of accordingly in the light of the above directions. 35. Urgent certified server copies, if applied for, be issued to the parties upon compliance of due formalities.