Judgment : Chittaranjan Dash, J. 1. By means of this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners seek interference of this Court with the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in T.A. No.260/00021 of 2014, rejecting their prayer for regularisation of service. 2. The claim of the Petitioners in the Writ Petition is that they were initially appointed as Junior Accountants against sanctioned posts and have continued to work without any break since 1995, though they had initially joined on 01.09.1993 and worked till October, 1995 with only a one-day artificial break. Despite repeated representations made by the Petitioners to the competent authority, namely, the Deputy Director, Sports Authority of India (SAI), Water Sports Centre, National Centre of Excellence (NCOE), Cuttack, their cases were never considered for regularisation. In the meantime, the Petitioners have completed nearly twenty-nine years of service. It is further pleaded that although the employer issued circulars for holding Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations, the Petitioners were not considered. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.2401 of 2003, which was subsequently transferred to the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, and registered as T.A. No.21 of 2014, seeking permission to appear in the Limited Departmental Examination and consideration of their cases for regularisation by granting due weightage to the experience gained by them. The Petitioners further assert that during the course of their service they were granted normal annual increments and extended the benefits of the 5th and 6th Central Pay Commissions. However, on account of the pendency of litigation, they were denied the benefits flowing from the 7th Central Pay Commission, which came into force with effect from 01.01.2016. It is further contended that one Kaushik Kumar Das, who was appointed subsequent to the Petitioners on a consolidated salary under conditions similar to those applicable to the Petitioners in 1993, was regularised as a Junior Accountant vide letter dated 03.02.1995, despite not having undergone any regular selection process or having appeared in the Limited Departmental Examination. Similarly, another individual, namely Kamakshya Prasad Dwibedi, was also appointed and regularised in a comparable manner, ignoring the claims of the Petitioners. T.A. No.21 of 2014 was disposed of by the learned Tribunal on 28.11.2019, directing regularisation of the Petitioners against Group-D posts under a misconception. Similarly, another individual, namely Kamakshya Prasad Dwibedi, was also appointed and regularised in a comparable manner, ignoring the claims of the Petitioners. T.A. No.21 of 2014 was disposed of by the learned Tribunal on 28.11.2019, directing regularisation of the Petitioners against Group-D posts under a misconception. The said order was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.5861 of 2021, wherein liberty was granted to the Petitioners to approach the learned Tribunal afresh. Pursuant thereto, a fresh application was filed before the learned Tribunal, the order whereof is impugned herein. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners strenuously contended that their case squarely falls within the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Kesari , (2010) 9 SCC 247 , Jaggo vs. Union of India , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 and Dharam Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another , 2025 INSC 998 and accordingly sought regularisation by setting aside the impugned order of the learned Tribunal. 4. Per contra, Mr. Lalitendu Mishra, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party Nos.2 to 4, vehemently opposed the submissions and contended that the Petitioners were never appointed against sanctioned posts and, having failed to qualify the Limited Departmental Examination, are not entitled to claim regularisation under the principles enunciated in M.L. Kesari (supra), Dharam Singh (supra), or Jaggo (supra). 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon a careful perusal of the materials available on record, including the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal, and taking note of the undisputed position that the Petitioners were engaged with effect from the year 1993, initially with a one-day artificial break till 1995 and thereafter continuously for more than twenty-nine years, while being extended service benefits including pay revisions under the 5th and 6th Central Pay Commissions, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioners cannot be excluded from the protective sweep of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharam Singh (supra) and Jaggo (supra). 6. In Jaggo vs. Union of India & Others , reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, relying on the earlier precedents including Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi , reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Kesari , (2010) 9 SCC 247 , has held as follows: “ 26 . In Jaggo vs. Union of India & Others , reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, relying on the earlier precedents including Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi , reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Kesari , (2010) 9 SCC 247 , has held as follows: “ 26 . While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered 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 (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. 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.” 7. It is further held in Dharam Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another , 2025 INSC 998 , as follows: 17. 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.” 7. It is further held in Dharam Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another , 2025 INSC 998 , as follows: 17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines. 18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad- hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running. 19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue the following directions: i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts : All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above. ii. Financial consequences and arrears : Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization /retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment. iii. Retired appellants : Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgement. iv. Deceased appellants : In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgement. v. Compliance affidavit : The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgement. 8. In the present case, the long, continuous and uninterrupted service rendered by the Petitioners for over twenty-nine years unmistakably brings their case within the parameters laid down for consideration of regularisation. 8. In the present case, the long, continuous and uninterrupted service rendered by the Petitioners for over twenty-nine years unmistakably brings their case within the parameters laid down for consideration of regularisation. Such continuance, coupled with extension of regular pay scales and increments, clearly satisfies the tests enunciated in Judhistir Dang vs. State of Odisha and others W.P.(C) No.8446 of 2009 , which in turn is in consonance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.L. Kesari (supra) , Jaggo (supra) and Shripal & another vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 . The cumulative effect of these decisions leaves little room for doubt that the Petitioners’ engagement is not illegal, warrants consideration for regularisation in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is unsustainable in the eye of law. The Opposite Parties are directed to carry out regularisation of the Petitioners within a period of three months from today. 10. A compliance report shall be filed before the Registrar General of this Court within one week thereafter, failing which the Opposite Parties shall be liable to face contempt proceedings. Such liability shall accrue with effect from the date immediately following the completion of ten years of service from the initial date of appointment. Costs are imposed, though reluctantly.