JUDGMENT
K.R. Vyas, J.
1. The petitioners in these petitions, who were appointed by the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies or through the Liquidators for the purpose of assisting the Liquidators in winding up proceedings of the societies, have claimed status of civil servants and prayed for regularisation of their services from the date of their appointment and to extend all the benefits that are being extended to Government employees.
2. It appears that after the Rule was issued in the main petition being S.C.A. No. 2815 of 1983, the petitioners amended the petition and interim relief restraining the respondents from terminating their services was granted by this Court. However, respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the said petition filed civil application for vacating the interim relief and the petitioners filed civil applications claiming salary. In the said civil applications, this Court directed the respondents to pay salary to the petitioners with liberty to terminate their services in accordance with law. In pursuance of the said direction, order of termination of the petitioners’ services dated 25-11-1987 was passed which the petitioners have challenged by filing S.C.A. No. 6313 of 1987.
3. With regard to S.C.A. Nos. 3775 of 1986 and 4207 of 1986, while issuing Rule, this Court restrained the respondents from effecting any order of termination for the purpose of giving break in service to the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners of these petitions have continued in service pursuant to the said order of this Court.
4. Since the facts of these petitions are identical and common question of law arises therein, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners of S.C.A. No. 2815 of 1983 were appointed as Clerks by the Liquidator on monthly salary of Rs. 300/- and the District Registrar by his order dated 9-10-1980 approved the same. Similarly, the District Registrar by his letter dated 31-3-1981 approved the proposal of the Liquidator to raise the salary of the petitioners from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 350/- with effect from 1-4-1981.
6. The petitioner of S.C.A. No. 3775 of 1986 was appointed as a Clerk by the Liquidator on a monthly salary of Rs. 200/-. However, after considering his request for rise in salary, the District Registrar raised it to Rs. 300/-.
7. In S.C.A. No. 4207 of 1986 the District Registrar himself appointed the first petitioner on a monthly salary of Rs. 250/- with Rs. 10/- being yearly increment making it clear that the post is temporary and the petitioner can be discharged any time without any notice. The said salary was raised to Rs. 600/-with effect from 1-1-1981. Not only that, the 2nd petitioner was in fact given the grade of Rs. 260-400/- clarifying that though he was in the grade of Clerk, he would not be considered as a Government servant. The 2nd petitioner was given a consolidated salary which was raised to Rs. 600/- per month. Both the petitioners were being paid compensatory local allowance, dearness allowance, house rent allowance, bonus and leave encashment and such other benefits permissible to Government servants with effect from 1-7-1982.
8. The petitioners have contended that in view of the duties and functions being discharged by them and the work which they are doing being perennial in nature, they are Government servants and are entitled to be treated on par with the Government servants. Petitioners of S.C.A. No. 4207 of 1986 have contended that they are getting the pay scales as admissible to the Government servants for the post of Clerk together with the other benefits of dearness allowance, compensatory local allowances, leave encashment admissible to Clerks in the Government and, therefore, there is no reason not to treat them on par with the Government servants.
9. On the other hand, the respondents have contended that the staff appointed by the concerned Liquidators for assisting them as per their requirements cannot be said to be the staff of the Government by any stretch of imagination as they are appointed by the concerned Liquidator and not by the District Registrar or the Government. The respondents contended that the staff so appointed by the concerned Liquidator cannot be said to have been appointed by the District Registrar or the State Government as they are not appointed/recruited as per Recruitment Rules after following the proper procedure. It is further contended that neither their appointments have been made on the posts sanctioned by the Government nor their salary is paid from the Government exchequer.
10. For the purpose of deciding the dispute between the parties, it is necessary to consider certain provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Under Section 107 the Registrar is empowered to pass an interim order of winding up against a society (i) after holding inquiry under Section 86 or an inspection under Section 87 or on the report of the auditor auditing the accounts of the society; or (ii) on receipt of an application made upon a resolution carried by three-fourth of the members; or (iii) of his own motion in the case of a society which has not commenced working or has ceased working etc. or has ceased to comply with any conditions under the Act or the rules or the bye-laws or directions issued. The Registrar, after communicating the interim order and after calling for explanation, and after giving an opportunity to it of being heard, shall make a final order vacating or confirming the interim order. Section 108 deals with appointment and fixation of remuneration of the Liquidator by the Registrar after the order passed under Section 107 of the Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 108, which is relevant for our purposes, provides that the Liquidator shall subject to the general control of the Registrar, exercise all or any of the powers mentioned in Section 110. Under Sub-section (5) the Liquidator is vested with the whole of the assets of the society. Sub-section (6) provides for handing over the property, effects, actionable claims, books, records and other documents of the society to the officers, in the event of the interim order being vacated by the Liquidator. Section 109 provides for appeal against the order of winding up. Section 110 deals with various powers of the Liquidator including the power to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses and to compel the production of any books, accounts, documents, securities, cash or other properties belonging to or in the custody of the society by the same means and in the same manner as provided in the case of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section Ill deals with effects of order of winding up and it, inter alia, states that when a winding up order becomes effective, the Liquidator shall proceed to realise the assets of the society by sale or otherwise and no dispute shall be commenced or if pending at the date of the winding up order, be proceeded with against the society, except by leave of the Registrar and subject to such terms as the Registrar may impose. The Registrar may of his own motion, however, entertain or dispose of any dispute by or against the society. Section 112 deals with bar of suit in winding up and dissolution matters. The Liquidator has to present to the Registrar an account in the prescribed form of his receipts and payments; furnish vouchers and information. Section 114 deals with termination of liquidation proceedings and it is provided that the winding up proceedings of a society shall be closed within three years from the date of the order of the winding up, unless the period is extended by the Registrar. Sub-section (2) of Section 114 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) the Registrar shall terminate the liquidation proceedings on receipt of the final report from the Liquidator, and the final report of the Liquidator shall state that the liquidation proceedings of the society have been closed and also state how the winding up has been conducted and the property and claims of the society have been disposed off, and shall include a statement showing a summary of the account of the winding up including the cost of liquidation, the amount, if any, standing to the credit of the society, after paying off its liabilities including the share or interest of members and shall suggest how the surplus should be utilised. Section 115 deals with disposal of surplus assets and after devoting to any object or objects provided in the bye-laws of the society.
11. Now let us see the duties and functions of the petitioners. They have to assist the Liquidators in the office work, drafting including notices to the parties, giving reply to the members of the societies under liquidation, to undertake journeys to various places to assist the Liquidator, take over charge of the society from the officers of the society under liquidation, prepare balance-sheet, charge-sheet, prepare list of debtors of society, verify dues against them including calculation of interest, prepare claims for and against the society in liquidation, prepare case for initiate action against debtors, serve them notices for hearing under Section 110(h), record statements of members and officers concerned in case misappropriation is found out, prepare certificate under Section 103 for execution against the concerned member, prepare final account at the end of every co-operative year and forward the same to the proper authorities, undertake journey as and when directed by the Liquidator, prepare balance-sheet regularly twice a year minimum, to receive payments made by the members and issue receipts and give account to the Liquidator, write down accounts and prepare necessary documents, maintain books of accounts and get them audited, attend bank for depositing receipts and the amount recovered as liquidation fees, prepare list of dead stock, assets, liabilities, machineries etc., to prepare public notice for disposal of dead stock arid other assets and machineries, move either alone or with the Liquidator from village to village to recover dues from members and to prepare documents, etc.
12. Reading the aforesaid provisions of the said Act and considering the duties and functions of the Liquidators in respect of the work of effecting winding up, the Registrar appoints persons to assist the Liquidators. The duties and functions of the clerks appointed to assists the Liquidators are, as stated above, in consonance with the duties and functions of the Liquidator and they have to work under the control and supervision of the concerned Liquidator. The Liquidator may be a Government officer, a Bank officer or a lawyer etc. He has power, subject to the rules and the general supervision, control and direction of the Registrar, as enumerated in Section 110 of the said Act. Therefore, for carrying out the winding up of the society in liquidation, the Liquidator needs the services of clerics and peons who are appointed by the Liquidator, subject to the approval of the District Registrar or by the District Registrar himself. The District Registrar has also the power to remove the Liquidator and to appoint another person in his place without assigning any reason. The fact that the Liquidator has to present to the Registrar an account in the prescribed form of his receipts and the payments and to submit the final report of the liquidation proceedings is an adequate factor to suggest that the Liquidator acts under the control and supervision of the Registrar. The powers enumerated in Section 110 can be exercised by the Liquidator, subject to the rules and general supervision, control and directions of the Registrar, and in exercise of such powers for the purpose of winding up proceedings, when the Liquidator needs assistance, with the prior approval of the Registrar, he is entitled to make appointment of such persons as clerks or peons. This position has not been disputed. The duties and functions which the clerks so appointed either by the Liquidator or the District Registrar, are also not controverted in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents. It is also not disputed, as can be seen from the affidavit-in-reply filed in S.C.A. No. 4207 of 1986 by S.P. Bhatt, District Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Baroda, that considering the extent of liquidation work the Government created a post of Co-operative Officer (Liquidation) and such officer is required to complete the liquidation of various co-operative societies in liquidation. In fact the Registrar, Co-operative societies has issued a circular on 9-6-1976 permitting the Liquidators to appoint clerks to assist them in the liquidation work on certain terms and conditions. One of the terms provided in that said circular is that for the purpose of accounts work, the Government officers, with the prior approval of the District Registrar/ Assistant District Registrar, can avail of the services of outsiders according to their requirements and their remuneration shall be debited to the account of the society in liquidation. In view of the above, it becomes clear that though the Liquidator appoints clerks and peons, he is not the appointing authority as the appointments made by him are always subject to the approval of the Registrar. The fact that the Registrar approved the appointments; granted increments, other benefits and even petitioners of S.C.A. No. 4207 of 1986 have also been placed in the grade of Rs. 260-6-308-EB-8-326-8-350-EB-8-390-10-400 together with the benefits of dearness allowance, compensatory local allowance, bonus, etc. admissible to the clerks in the Government services, would leave no manner of doubt that the power of appointment is exercised by the District Registrar alone. In view of this, it is not possible for this Court to accept the submission of the respondents that the petitioners, are appointed only by the Liquidator and not by the Registrar. The powers exercisable, and duties and functions as enumerated in Section 110 of the Act by the Liquidator are quasi-judicial in nature and any action or inaction on the part of the clerk discharging duties in accordance with the rules and instructions under the general supervision, control and direction of the Liquidator has the effect on the process of the winding up proceedings.
13. On behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that the petitioners are for all practical purposes Government servants. To substantiate this, reliance is placed on the following circumstances:
(i) The nature of the work performed by the petitioners is public service, i.e., Government work.
(ii) The Officer under whom the petitioners are working is a statutory authority.
(iii) The works which the petitioners are performing in respect of liquidation of societies are as per the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, the Rules and the Bye-lws framed thereunder.
(iv) The appoointments are made by the District Registrar who has granted rise in pay, pay-scales and other benefits.
(v) Circular dated 16-5-1986 issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gujarat, even though states that it is not a Government work and that the appointment is temporary or the appointment is unauthorised, the said circular, however, directs to give break in service to the clerks appointed to carry out the work of winding up.
(vi) The nature of work is perennial and it is not a temporary work.
14. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that as the appointment of the petitioners is made on temporary basis till the completion of the winding up proceedings and, therefore, the nature of work is not perennial. It is also contended that the office of the District Registrar is included in Schedule “B” to the Gujarat Non-Secretariat Clerks, Clerk-cum-Typists, Typists (Direct Recruitment Procedure) Rules, 1970 (Centralised Recruitment Scheme), it is the contention of the respondents that all the appointments are required to be made under the said Rules and any appointment made contrary to the provisions of the Rules is illegal. The respondents have, therefore, contended that as the petitioners have not been appointed on the establishment of the office of the District Registrar and that none of them has been selected under the Centralised Recruitment Scheme nor any one of them has been sponsored by the Employment Exchange, nor at any point of time their salary was paid by the Government, they are not entitled to claim the status of a Government servant, nor can they be absorbed in the Government services and their services cannot be regularised as such.
15. Thus, only question which arises in these petitions is whether the petitioners have acquired the status of a Government servant and whether their services are required to be regularised. As stated above, the liquidation proceedings are quasi-judicial proceedings. They are carried out by the Liquidator appointed by the District Registrar under the provisions of the Act. The Liquidator is vested with the powers as enumerated under Section 110 of the Act. He exercises the said powers, subject to the rules and the general supervision, control and direction of the Registrar. For the purposes of smooth working of the winding up proceedings, the Government issued a circular under which the Liquidator, with the approval of the District Registrar, or the District Registrar, himself, can appoint persons to assist the Liquidator in the winding up proceedings.
16. For the purpose of putting the record straight and with a view to examine whether the work of winding up of societies is perennial in nature, this Court called for the relevant details of the registered co-operative societies of the State and or the societies under the process of winding up in the State from the learned Assistant Government Pleader. According to the statement supplied by the Statistical Officer to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Gujarat, there are 49,594 registered societies as on 30-6-1994 out of which the societies in liquidations are 1,411 in the year 1993. This clearly suggests that the work which the petitioners are doing is of a permanent nature. For the sake of argument, assuming that the work of winding up of societies in a particular city “A” is over, the services of the persons engaged for winding up can be utilised for the similar work in city “B” where there is work. The fact that the petitioners are doing work under the direct control and supervision of a quasi-judicial statutory authyority and performing statutory functions is a relevant factor to hold that the petitioners are civil servants whose acts and deeds have the effect on the process of winding up proceedings.
17. In State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra , the Supreme Court has explained the meaning and scope of ‘Civil Post’ under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The question before the Supreme Court was whether a Mauzadar in the Assam Valley, who is not a whole time employee not drawing salary but paid commission, holds a civil post under the State of Assam and is entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution? In that context, the Supreme Court held that the fact that he was nor wholetime employee not drew a salary but commission, did not alter status of his post as post outside regularly constituted services need not necessarily carry definite rate of pay, nor such post must necessarily be a wholetime employment. In praragraph 9 of its judgment, the Supreme Court observed,-
….A civil post is distinguished in Article 310 from a post connected with defence. It is a post on the civil as distinguished from the defence side of the administration, an employment in a civil capacity under the Union or a State…. In Article 311, a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State is mentioned separately, and a civil post means a post not connected with defence outside the regular civil services. A post is a service or employment. A person holding a post under a State is a person serving or employed under the State… The heading and the sub-heading of Part XIV and Chapter I emphasise the element of service. There is a relationship of master and servant between the State and a person said to be holding a post under it. The existence of this relationship is indicated by the State’s right to select and appoint the holder of the post, its right to suspend and dismiss him, its right to control the manner and method of his doing the work and the payment by it of his wages or remuneration. A relationship of master and servant may be established by the presence of all or some of these indicia, in conjunction with other circumstances and it is a question of fact in each case whether there is such a relation between the State and the alleged holder of a post.
Judged in this light, let us consider the case on hand. The petitioners working as clerks are holders of a civil post under the State as the District Registrar through the Liquidator, has the power and the right to select and appoint a clerk and the power to suspend and dismiss him. The petitioners are subordinate public servants working under the supervision and control of the District Registrar through the Liquidators. The petitioners receive remuneration, of course, from the funds of the societies in liquidation. However, this would not change the position. There is a relationship of master and servant between the State and the petitioners. The petitioners are holding office on co-operative side of the administration to which specific and onerous duties in connection with the affairs of the State are attached. They are responsible and answerable to the Liquidators who are exercising statutory powers under the Act. It is only because of the existing system of their recruitment and/or employment and functions that they are denied the status of a civil post under the State. The fact that the petitioners are not selected nor their appointments have been made following the procedure for selection set out under the Centralised Recruitment Scheme or the 1970 Rules for which they cannot be blamed, cannot come in their way because althroughout they have not been considered as Government servants even though they were appointed either by the District Registrar or by him through the Liquidator. Rule 8 of the Gujarat Non-Secretariat Clerks, Clerk-Typists and Typists (Direct Recruitment Procedure) Rules, 1970 provides that every year the offices situated in the respective Districts and offices of Heads of Departments/offices mentioned in Appendix “B” shall send a statement to the Collector concerned and the convener of the Departmental Selection Committee concerned, respectively not later than the 1st May, indicating their requirements of new recruits for appointment to the posts of Clerks, Clerk-typists and Typists for the next year commencing from October to September with such particulars, as the Collectors and the Conveners of the Departmental Selection Committee may, by general or special order direct. It is further provided that the estimate of anticipated requirements of selected candidates shall not depend merely upon the actual number of vacancies existing or likely to arise on some particular date. But the offices to which these rules apply shall prepare an estimate of their probable requirements by past experience depending upon the probable vacancies on account of resignations and other grounds and creation of new posts owing to anticipated development. Thus, this estimate shall not merely be an estimate of exact number of posts that may fall vacant during particular period, but shall be an exhaustive numerical estimate of anticipated requirements of Clerks, Clerk-typists and Typists. In view of the pending winding up proceedings in the State and the perennial nature of the work, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gujarat was expected to send a statement to the Collector indicating his requirements for new recruits. Since the proposals were not made, the chance of the petitioners being selected and appointed did not materialise and by this time the petitioners have become over-age. In any case, if the District Registrar appoints a private person as Clerk directly or through the Liquidator considering the perennial nature of the work, there was no reason for him not to seek sanction for new recruits as per the Recruitment Rules. In view of this I see no merit in the submission of the respondents that as the petitioners have not been appointed by following the due procedure, they are not civil servants. In view of what is discussed above, I hold that the petitioners are for all purposes Government servants.
18. Next question which arises for consideration is whether the services of the petitioners can be regularised by this Court? In Dharwad P.W.D. Employees’ Association v. State of Karnataka , the Supreme Court directed the State Government to frame a more rational scheme for absorbing as many casual workers and monthly rated Gangmen and Sowdies as possible in regular cadres. Pursuant to the said direction, the State filed a draft scheme and considering the same the Supreme Court directed that the daily/ monthly rated or casual working continuously for long under Instrumentalities of the State must be regularised in service and the Scheme was finalised by the Court giving directions inter alia for immediately regularising services of 18,600 out of 50,000 workers who completed ten years’ service and for regularising the remaining such workers in phased manner. It is observed in the said judgment:
We are alive to the position that the scheme which we have finalised is not the ideal one but as we have already stated, it is the obligation of the Court to individualise justice to suit a given situation in a set of facts that are placed before it. Under the scheme of the Constitution the purpose remains in the hands of the executive. The legislature of the State controls the Consolidated Fund out of which the expenditure to be incurred in giving effect to the scheme will have to be met. The flow into the Consolidated Fund depends upon the policy of taxation depending perhaps on the capacity of the payer. Therefore, unduly burdening the State for implementing the constitutional obligation forthwith would create problems which the State may not be able to stand. We have, therefore, made our directions with judicious restraint with the hope and trust that both parties would appreciate and understand the situation….
19. In Jacob M. Puthuparambil v. Kerala Water Authority , the Supreme Court issued direction for regularisation in service of the employees of Kerala Water Authority. In the said case, the appointments of the employees by way of stop-gap arrangement were made till regular appointments were made. It appears that the employees appointed by way of stop-gap arrangement continued for more than two years and were also possessing requisite qualifications. The Supreme Court, in that context, held that they are entitled to have their service regularised.
20. In H.C. Puttaswamy v. Hon’ble Chief Justice of Karnataka , the appointment made by the Chief Justice of High Court without consulting Public Service Commission was contrary to the Karnataka Civil Services (Magisterial Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1986. The Supreme Court though held that the appointment was not proper, it directed the appointees to be treated as regularly appointed on humanitarian ground.
21. It is needless to say that the petitioners before this Court have relied on the aforesaid decisions to substantiate their contentions.
22. However, on behalf of the respondents reliance is placed on the following judgments. In R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmaiah , the Supreme Court in para 26 has observed:
…If the appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution illegality cannot be regularised. Ratification or regularisation is possible of an act which is within the power and province of the authority but there has been some non-compliance with procedure or manner which does not go to the root of the appointment. Regularisation cannot be said to be a mode of recruitment. To accede to such a proposition would be to introduce a new head of appointment in defiance of rules or it may have the effect of setting at naught the rules….
23. In Delhi Development Horticulture Employees’ Union v. Delhi Administration , the Supreme Court negatived the case of the persons employed under the Jawaharlal Nehru Rozgar Yojna for their regularisation merely because they put in more than 240 days service. It is observed by the Supreme Court:
If the resources used for the Jawahar Rozgar Yojna were in their entirety to be used for providing full employment throught out the year, they would have given employment only to a small percentage of the population in need of income, the remaining vast majority being left with no income whatsoever. No fault can, therefore, be found with the limited object of the scheme giving the limited resources at the disposal of the State. Those employed under the scheme, therefore, could not ask more than what the scheme intended to give them. To get an employment under such scheme and to claim on the basis of the said employment, a right to regularisation is to frustrate the scheme itself. No Court can be a party to such exercise. It is wrong to approach the problems of those employed under such scheme with a view to providing them with full employment and guaranteeing equal pay for equal work. These concepts, in the context of such schemes are both unwarranted and misplaced. They will do more harm than good by depriving the many of the little income that they may get to keep them from starvation. They would benefit a few at the cost of the many starving poor for whom the schemes are meant. They would also force the State to wind up the existing schemes and forbid them from introducing the new ones for want of resources. This is not to say that the problems of the unemployed deserve no consideration or sympathy. This is only to emphasise that even among the unemployed a distinction exists between those who live below and above the poverty line, those in need of partial and those in need of full employment, the educated and uneducated, the rural and urban unemployed etc.
There cannot be any dispute as regards the principles laid down in the said decision. However, the facts of the present case are quite different from the facts before Supreme Court. The fact that the petitioners have put in 240 days service is not the only ground on which the petitioners claim regularisation or absorption and, therefore, the authority cited on behalf of the respondents will be of no assistance to them.
24. In Dr. M.A. Hague and Ors. v. Union of India , the Supreme Court depricated the regularisation of services of the irregular appointments made in disregard of the Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution and bypassing the Public Service Commission by the Government and the authorities.
25. In Dr. Arundhati A. Pargaonkar v. State of Maharashtra , the Supreme Court observed that eligibility and continuous working for howsoever long period should not be permitted to over-reach the law. The requirement of rules of selection through Commission cannot be substituted by humane considerations. Law must take its course. Consequently the appellant was not entitled to claim that she should have been deemed to have been regularised if she had been working without break for nine years.
26. In M.P. Hasta Shilpa Vikas Nigam v. Devendrakumar Jain where the appointments of employees including Junior Managers were made hastily by the then Managing Director shortly 25 days before his retirement for a project for development of handicrafts in contravention of the Government instructions. It appears that the State Government prohibited the appointments. Inspite of that certain persons were appointed on temporary basis without such approval and the Government in turn terminated the services of such appointees on account of want of requisite approval. It appears that the High Court quashed the said order. The Supreme Court quashed the order of the High Court on the ground that the appointments were made hastily by the then Managing Director shortly before his retirement. In my opinion, the facts of the present case are quite different and no reliance can be placed on this authority also.
27. In J. & K. Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narinder Mohan the Supreme Court set aside the directions given by the High Court to regularise the services of the respondents on the ground that the said directions were contrary to the provisions of the Rules.
28. Considering the decisions cited hereinabove, it is amply clear that the Court, while issuing direction of regularisation should keep in mind the judicious restraint and try to avoid undue burdening the State for implementing the scheme. In other words, the Court should individualise justice to suit a given situation in a set of facts that are placed before it. The Court should also see that the direction of regularisation may not conflict with the existing rules of recruitment.
29. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles of law and the findings arrived at by this Court that the petitioners are held to be civil servants and for no fault of theirs they have been denied the absorption in the Government services, especially when it is held in the instant case that the works they are performing are perennial in nature. I am of the view that the petitioners have made out a case of regularisation of their services and, therefore, following directions, this Court hopes, will serve the ends of justice:
1. The respondents are directed to consider the individual cases of the petitioners, frame an appropriate Scheme for regularisation and/or absorption of their services and post them at the places where the work is available by treating them civil servants in the appropriate grades of scales.
2. The respondents shall treat only those employees as Government employees who are appointed either by the Registrar or the Liquidator who himself is the Government employee. It is clarified that, if a Bank or a lawyer is a Liquidator and has appointed its/his staff to carry out the work of winding up of society in liquidation, such staff will not be treated as Government employees.
3. The respondents shall formulate an appropriate Scheme for regularisation and/or absorption in services of such employees, including the petitioners, in light of the observations made in this judgment within a period of three months from the date of receipt of writ of this Court.
4. Till the finalisation of the Scheme and implementation thereof, the interim relief granted by this Court to the concerned petitioners shall continue.
Rule in each of these petitions is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with costs.