' SYED AFSAR SHAH, J.--- Through the instant Writ Petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Ahmad Din and Nasir Din, the petitioners, have made a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondents to give them benefit under the provisions of N.-W.F.P. (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) Civil Servant (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Regulation of Services) Act, 2009, whereby services of all ad hoc and contract employees, have-been regularized.
2. The resume of facts forming the background of the instant writ petition is that, in consequence of an advertisement, floated in daily print media, by the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Agricultural Live Stock and Co-operative Department Peshawar about vacant posts of Water Management Officers Agriculture BPS-17, the petitioners, applied for the said posts and on the recommendations of the Departmental Selection Committee, they were recruited on the aforesaid posts vide Notification No,S0E(AD)11(2)70/2004 dated 24-11-2004 and No,SOE (AD)II(2)70/2007/WMO dated 12-3-2007, purely on contract basis, for a period of one year. Later on, Director General Agriculture (Extension) Peshawar/respondent # 4, advertised some vacant posts of Agriculture Officers, in Agriculture Department, for which both the petitioners applied, and were thus appointed on the recommendations of Departmental Selection Committee, against the aforesaid vacant posts of Agriculture Officers vide Notifications Nos.SOE (AD)9-7/2008/CMP II dated 26-9-2008 and 5-12-2008, respectively, on contract basis in the project titled, "Special Programmed for Food Security and Productivity Enhancements of Small Farmers (Crop Maximization Project-II). It is alleged by the petitioners that vide Notification dated 17th March, 2008, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Agricultural Live Stock and Co-operative Department accord approval of certain employees in the said project, while some employees of the same department were regularized on the basis of notification dated 4-3-2010; that in light of the said enactment, on one hand, the petitioners were expecting their adjustment/appointment on regular basis as their legitimate right, while on the other hand, they have gained sufficient experience while performing their duties in the respondents' department in the projects as it was because of their satisfactory performance that the contract was extended from time to time.
3. It is averred in the petition that number of employees working in different projects of the respondents' department, have been regularized except the petitioners despite the fact that their job and contract/project was at par with those employees and this act of the respondents department, on one hand, is discriminatory and smacks mala fide, while on the other hand, is in utter disregard of policy of the Government on the subject. It is further averred that employees working in various projects of the respondents department approached this Court as well as the apex Court by filing identical writ petitions against the respondents department, which were decided in their favour and as a consequence whereof, their services have been regularized, therefore, in the circumstances, the respondents department is legally bound to honour the decision of this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court by treating them at par with other similar employees of the department.
4. When put on notice respondents filed their para-wise comments to the petition wherein they have refuted the allegations of the petitioners by asserting that the Officer/Officials whose services were acquired from the department of Agriculture Extension on deputation basis, had been returned to their parent departments, on completion of their deputation period, while none of the project employees, of any project, has been regularized in the Agriculture Extension Department.
According to them, the petitioners have no vested right to claim regularization against regular posts, being contractual employees of the project, the tenure of which has already been expired on 30th June, 2012 as per ECNEC, thus the petitioners being project employees and hired for the said project period, are not entitled to be regularized.
5. We have heard the exhaustive submissions of. both the sides and perused the record with their valuable assistance.
6. Before dilating upon the merits of instant writ petition, it deserves to have mention here that petitioner No,1 along with 41 others, were appointed against newly created posts of Water Management Officer (Agriculture) BPS-17, purely on contract basis in the project, titled National Program for Improvement/lining of water courses in N.-W.F.P. The appointment order dated 24-11- 2004, was issued by respondent No,1 on the recommendation of Departmental Selection Committee, Government of N.-W.P.P. initially for a period of one year, extendable for further period, subject to their satisfactory performance. Likewise petitioner No,2, was appointed by the respondent No,1, on the recommendation of Departmental Selection Committee as Water Management Officer (Agriculture) BPS-17, purely on contract basis for a period of one year. We deem it appropriate to mention here that most of the employees; except few appointed vide notification dated 24-11-2004, have been regularized by the department, in compliance of the order of this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan.
7 After appointment of petitioner No,1, the Provincial Government vide N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants (Amendment) Act, 2005, amended section 19 of the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants Act, 1973. Subsection (2) of section 19 of the Act ibid, is reproduced for ready reference:--- "(2) A person though selected for appointment in the prescribed manner to a service or post on or after the 1st day of July, 2001, till the commencement of the said Act, but appointed on contract basis, shall with effect from the commencement of the said Act, be deemed to have been appointed on regular basis. All such persons and the persons appointed on regular basis to a service or post in the prescribed manner after the commencement of the said Act shall, for all intents and purposes be civil servant, except for the purpose of pension or gratuity. Such Civil servant shall in lieu of pension and gratuity be entitled to receive such amount contributed by him towards the Contributory Provident Fund along with the contribution made by Government to his account in the said Fund in the prescribed manner."
' From the bare reading of the above quoted section, it is manifest that persons appointed to a service or post on or after 1st day of July, 2001 till 23rd July, 2005, on contract basis, but in prescribed manner, were deemed to have been appointed on regular basis however, they were not held entitled for pensionary benefits and gratuity. In consequence of the above said amendment, the Provincial Government, regularized the services of contract employees throughout the province, but this benefit was not extended to some of the employees, on the pretext that they have not been appointed in prescribed manner. The controversy conflagrated amongst the employees, thus the matter was brought before this court for interpretation of "appointed in prescribed manner", Number of Writ Petitions filed by the aggrieved contract employees, were decided by this court in a renown case title Dr. Rizwan v. Government of N.-W.F.P. through Chief Secretary and others wherein the controversy was set at naught by holding that all the employees appointed on the recommendation of Departmental Selection Committee, after test and interview, are entitled for regularization under section 19(2) of N.-W.F.P. Civil. Servants Act, 1973, being appointed in prescribed manner. The above referred judgment of this court attained finality and all the petitioners in Dr. Rizwan's case and connected petitioners were notified as regular employees of the provincial Government.
8. On promulgation of the then N.-W.F.P. now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Regularization of Services) Act, No,XVI 2009, against the controversy combusted and caught fire, which was brought by Abdullah Khan and others through Writ Petition No,1645 of 2007 and Writ Petitions Nos.29, 84, 43 of 2009, before this Court, which were allowed through a consolidated judgment with the direction to the department to treat the petitioners of the above said Writ Petitions, as regular employees of the department. It is worth to mention here that on the occasion thelearned Additional Advocate- General appearing on behalf of the Provincial Government had conceded the claim of the petitioners to be treated as regular employees. The judgment passed in Writ Petitions was not challenged before the apex court, however, review petitions were filed before this court for review of the consolidated judgment passed in Writ Petitions supra, but were dismissed vide consolidated judgment dated 1-12-2009. Dissatisfied with the judgment of this court passed in Review Petitions the Provincial Government approached the apex court through Civil Appeals Nos.834 to 837 of 2010.
The august Supreme Court while deciding the case titled "Government of North-West Frontier Province through Secretary Agriculture Livestock and Cooperatives Department Peshawar and others v. Abdullah Khan, and others" (2011 SCM R 898) was pleased to observe as under:--- "We have found that the case of the respondents was in fact squarely covered by the provisions of subsection (2) section 19 of the North-West Frontier Province Civil Servants (Amendment) Act, 2005 because the respondents had been appointed on contract basis in a manner in accord with the prescribed procedure and that they had been appointed between the period which was created for by the said Act of 2005. In this view of the matter, we have found the learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar to be quite justified in allowing the respondents' Writ Petitions and in dismissing the appellants' Review Petition and also in directing the appellants to treat the respondents as regular employees."
9. Consequently those employees of the Agriculture Department who had filed Writ Petitions mentioned above were regularized, while rest were not extended the benefit of the Act. Once again, more or less fifteen Writ Petitions, were brought before this court by the remaining employees, duly appointed through same notification dated 24-11-2004, which were decided through a consolidated judgment passed in Writ Petition No,360 of 2009 titled "Amir Hussain etc. v.
Government of N.-W.F.P. and others". Needless to mention that Amir Hussain petitioner in Writ Petition No,360 of 2009, had also been appointed vide order dated 24-11-2004 whose name exist serial No,6 of the appointment order/notification. Likewise, most of the Water Management Officers, appointed vide order dated 24-11-2004 were also petitioners in connected petitions, decided through consolidated judgment in Writ Petition No,360 of 2009. The Provincial Government again assailed the judgment of this court dated 15-9-2011, passed in Writ Petition No,360 and others through Civil Petitions Nos.562-P to 571-P, 588-P to 589-P, 605-P to 608-P of 2011, 55-P and 56-P and 60-P of 2012. The apex Court while refusing leave to appeal to the provincial Government, dismissed the above referred civil petition with the following observations:--- "After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for some of the respondents, we are of the opinion that the judgments of the learned Peshawar High Court impugned before us are not open to any exception. The law on subject has been promulgated by the petitioners itself; one in the year 2005 by amending the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the other by introducing the Regularization Act of 2009 where-under services of contract employees have been regularized; For the sake of convenience, the relevant provisions of the Amendment Act IX of 2005 are reproduced herein below:--- "19(1) ................................................................................................................
19(2). A person though selected for appointment in the prescribed manner to a service or post on or after the 1st day of July, 2011, till the commencement of the said Act but appointed on contract basis, shall, with effect from the commencement of the said Act, be deemed to have been appointed on regular basis. All such persons and the persons appointed on regular basis to a service or post in the prescribed manner after the commencement of the said Act, shall, for all intents and purposes be civil servants, except for the purpose of pension or gratuity. Such a civil servant shall, in lieu of pension and gratuity, be entitled to receive such amount contributed by him towards the Contributory Provident Fund, along with the contributions made by Government to his account in the said fund, in the prescribed manner."
' Similarly, section 3 of the Regularization Act, 2009 reads as under:--- "3. Regularization of Services of certain employees.--- All employees including recommendees of the High Court appointed on contract or ad hoc basis and holding that post on 31st December, 2008 or till the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to have been validly appointed on regular basis having the same qualification and experience for a regular post: ' Provided that the service promotion quota of all service cadres shall not be affected."
' In view of above, we find that under the Regularization Act, 2009, the services of all the persons appointed on contract were regularized."
' In view of the fact that validity of the law is not in question and when undisputedly and admittedly the respondents were appointed in the prescribed manner though on contract basis but they otherwise fulfilled the requirements of the Amendment Act, 2005 as well as requirement of Regularization Act, 2009, they were entitled to same and similar treatment as meted out to other similarly placed colleagues of the respondents. Objection that vacancies are not available would be invalid because it is within the ambit of the Provincial Government to create/sanction additional post in order to accommodate its contractual employees and to give affect to the Amendment Act, 2005 and Regularization Act, 2009."
10. By dismissing the petition for leave to appeal filed by the Provincial Government the apex court approbated the judgment of this court passed in Amir Hussain's case and consequently the Provincial Government by implementing judgment of this court regularized the services of incumbents appointed vide order dated 24-11-2004 except the petitioners.
11. Learned A.A.-G. while referring to appointment order of petitioner No,2, vehemently argued that his case does not fall within the ambit of section 19(2) of the Amendment Act IX of 2005, as he has been appointed as Water Management Officer Agriculture BPS-17, vide notification/appointment order dated 12-3-2007. He also agitated that the appointment of petitioner No,1 was made on contract basis in a project sponsored by the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock Government of Pakistan, thus, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009, is not attracted to his case. He made our visit to section 2(2) of the Civil Servant Act, 1973, whereby a civil servant has been defined as, a person who is a member of a civil service of the Province, or who hold a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Province, but does not include, a person who is on deputation to the Province from the Federation or any other Province or other authority; a person who is employed on contract or on work charged basis or who is paid from contingencies; or a person who is a "worker" or "workman" as defined in the Factories Act, 1934 (Act XXV of 1934), or the Workman's Compensation Act, 1923 (Act VIII of 1923). He also emphasised section 2(b) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Regularization of Service) Act, 2009, which provides definition of "the employee" as under:--- "Employee" means an ad hoc or a contract employee appointed by the Government on ad hoc or contract basis or second shift/night shift, but does not include the employees for project post or appointed on work charge basis or who are paid out of contingencies."
' Similarly, section 3 of the Act ibid reads as under:--- "Regularization of service of certain employees: All employees including recommendees of the High Court appointed on contract or ad hoc basis holding that post on 31st December, 2008 or till commencement of this Act shall be deemed to have been validly appointed on regular basis having the same qualification and experience of a regular Post".
12. We fully agreed with the contentions of learned A.A.-G. to the extent that the case of the petitioner No,1 does not fall under the provision of section 19(2) of the Amendment Act IX of 2005, as notification/appointment order of petitioner No,1 has been issued after cut off date provided in the Act ibid, but at the same time, the notification/appointment order of petitioner No,2 is worth perusal, which reads as under:--- GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P.
AGRIL/STOCK 7 COOP: DEPARTMENT. DATED PESHAWAR, THE 12-3-2007 NOTIFICATION ' NO.SOE(AD)II(2)70/2007/WMO.--- On recommendation of the Departmental Selection Committee, the competent authority is pleased to appoint the following as Water Management Officer (Agriculture) (BS-17) purely on contract basis for a period of One year against the vacant post in the National Program for improvement/Lining of Watercourses in N.-W.F.P. from the date of assuming the charge:---
1. Mr. Ahmad Zeb son of Mohibullah Malaland Agency.
2. Mr. Yasir Saeed son of Muhammad Saeed, Charsadda.
3. Mr. Nisar Ahmad son of Fazal Ghani, Swat.
4. Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Durrani son of Faqir Gul, Peshawar.
5. Mr. Naveed Anjum son of Talib Jan Bannu.
6. Mr. Hafeezullah son of Noor Muhammad, Nowshera.
7. Mr. Jamil Ahmad son of Ajab Noor Tank.
8. Mr. Javed Habib son of Habib Gul, Peshawar.
9. Mr. Nasir'ud Din son of Abdul Wadood, Bannu.
10. Mr. Israil Khan son of Ghazi Marjan, Bannu.
2. Their appointment shall be governed by the following terms and conditions.
(a) Their appointment shall be purely on contract basis initially for a period of One year. The contract shall be extended/renewed subject to their satisfactory performance on expiry of the initial period but this will not be counted towards their service regularization/seniority.
(b) Their appointment shall be subject to the medical fitness report by the standing Medical Board.
(c) They shall be governed by such rules, regulation, orders, acts relating to appointment, promotion, transfer, leave, T.A. Medical Attendance, efficiency and discipline and conduct as have been may (sic) be prescribed by the Government for the category of Government servants of their status, from time to time and as interpreted by the Government.
(d) Their pay will be fixed in the Basic Pay Scale 17 i.e, Rs,7140- 535-17640 from the date of their taking over the charge of the post.
(e) Their service shall be liable to termination on the following conditions:---
(i) At any time without notice and without assigning any reasons during the period of their contract appointment if their work during this period was not found satisfactory.
(ii) On one month notice by the Government on one side and by him on the other. In case the notice on either side is less than one month, a sum equivalent to the pay for the period by which the notice falls short of one month, will be paid by the Government to him or in lieu thereof one month pay shall be forfeited.
(iii) By Government, without previous notice if it is satisfied on material evidence that they are unfit and/or likely to remain unfit for a considerable period by reason of ill health or physical disability to discharge his duties. The decision of the Government as to what constitutes considerable period shall be final.
(f) They shall not be entitled to any Travelling Allowance/Daily Allowance on their first appointment/posting.
(g) They shall not contribute to G.P. Fund and will not be entitled to pension, gratuity benefits.
(h) This does not constitutes inter se seniority and the appointees shall not be entitled to seniority as against any other Government Servant.
3. If the above terms and conditions are acceptable to them, they would convey their willingness and attend office of the Director General, Water Management (National Program) for Improvement of Water Courses in N.-W.F.P., Peshawar for signing the Contract Agreement on or before 31-3-2007, positively. In case of non-submission of acceptance/signing of Contract Agreement, the offer will automatically stand cancelled. Sd/xxx SECRETARY AGRICULTURE Dated Pesh: the 12-3-2007 Endst No . SOE(AD)11(2)70/2007/WMO Copy of the above is forwarded to the:---
13. The bare reading of the above referred notification reveals that petitioner has been appointed on contract basis for a period of one year, extendable/renewable for further period, subject to his satisfactory performance. We confronted the learned A.A.-G. with notification/ appointment order dated 12-3-2007, referred to above, to show a single word that petitioner No,2 has been appointed against any project post, but he failed to do so. Thus, it is manifest from the above said order that appointment of petitioner No,2, was made by the competent authority on the recommendations of Departmental Selection Committee, after fulfilling all the legal and Codal formalities, therefore, his case squarely falls under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009.
14. For the detailed reasons discussed above, we entertain no amount of doubt that the petitioners were also sailing in the same boat and were entitled to the same relief, because services of similar placed employees of the same department, even appointed through same notification have been regularized. The petitioners have been denied the same benefit and have not been treated alike, merely on the ground that they have not approached the court through Writ Petition. In our view, after clear cut directions of this court as well as of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, the respondents should have regularized the services of petitioners instead of compelling them to file the instant writ petition.
15. The question involved in the instant Writ Petition has already been decided by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled "Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Abdullah Khan and others (2011 SCM R 898); Government of N-W.F.P. v. Kalim Shah (2011 SCM R 1004) and Amir Hussain's case Supra.
In the above quoted judgments the apex court was pleased to provide a pavement and guideline to the department by holding that employees of Agriculture Department appointed vide notification dated 24-11-2004 are equally entitled for benefits of section 19(2) of the (Amendment)
Act, 2005. It has been repeatedly held by the apex court that if a competent court of law decides a point of law or fact and if a such a decision covers not only the case of those litigating before the court but some other also, then under the dictate of justice the benefits of that judgment should not be restricted to those who had litigated rather shall be equally extended to those who had not indulged in litigation. In case titled "Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. The Secretary Establishment Division and others (1996 SCM R 1185), the august Supreme Court was pleased to rule as under:--- "If the Service Tribunal or Supreme Court decides a point of law relating to the terms of service of a civil servant which covers not only the case of civil servant who litigated, but also of other civil servants, who may have not taken any legal proceedings, in such a case the dictates, and rule of good governance demand that the benefit of such judgment by Service Tribunal/Supreme Court be extended to other civil servants, who may not be parties to the litigation instead of compelling them to approach the Service Tribunal or any other forum."
' Same view was reiterated by the august Supreme Court in case of Saddaqat Ali Khan through L.Rs, and others v. Collector Land Acquisition and others (PLD 2010 SC 878) in the following words:--- "Once a judicial determination, be it of a point of fact or of a point of law, has been made and if such a determination covers not only the ones litigating before the courts but some others also, then the dictates of justice would command that the benefits accruing from such a determination should not be restricted only to the litigating parties but should be extended even to those who had not indulged in litigation unless there were some extraordinary un-exceptionable reasons to the contrary and that all powers, including the power's inherent in the courts be invoked for the purpose. Such would not only ensure justice for all but would also have the effect of eliminating unnecessary litigation."
' In support of the above quoted judgments reference may also be made to the case titled "Government of Punjab through Secretary Education and others v. Sameena Parveen and others"
(2009 SCM R 1).
16. In the instant case the only reason which had weighed the respondents for denying the regularization of the petitioners was that they had not filed Writ Petition before this court. In view of the above referred judgments, it is clear than crystal that the petitioner No,1 has been appointed along with 40 other employees vide-notification dated 24th November, 2004. It is also not refuted that the other colleagues, of the petitioners appointed through same notification have already been regularized by the department in consequence of judgments of this court as well as august Supreme Court of Pakistan.
17. We deem it obligatory to mention that it was not for the first time that the services of ad hoc or contract employees of this Province were regularized rather, prior to the Regularization Act, 2009 numerous employees of the provincial government holding post on ad hoc or contract basis have been regularized through various enactments. The Provincial Assembly of N.-W.F.P. (now Khyber.
Pakhtunkhwa) passed the N.-W.F.P. Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularization of Services) Act, 1987 on 4- 3-1987 assented to by Governor of the Province on 16-3-1987, whereby all civil servants holding ad hoc appointments to a post on or before 20th September, 1986, and continuing as such till the commencement of the said Act were regularized with effect from commencement of the Act. The same exercise was repeated in the year 1988 through enactment of N.-W.F.P. Civil Servant (Regularization of Services) Act, 1988, whereby the services of ad hoc appointees were regularized but subject to a preferential right of appointment of a selectee of Public Service Commission, if any.
In the year 1989 the N.-W.F.P. Employees on Contract Basis (Regularization of Services) Act, 1989 was enacted by the Provincial Legislature in pursuance of which all the contract employees serving in the Province were regularized. Again the N.-W.F.P. Employees on Contract Basis (Regularization of Services) (Amendment) Act, 1990, was promulgated and section 4 of the Employees on Contract Basis (Regularization of Services) Act, 1989 was substituted and employees of the Provincial Government were regularized from the date of their continuous officiation, subject to eligibility, according to the service rules applicable to the post and verification by administrative Secretary of the department. Later on, in the year 2005, section 19 of the N-W.F.P. Civil Servants Act, 1973, was amended and the services of employees of the Provincial Government, appointed in prescribed manner to the post on or after 1-7-2001 till the commencement of N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants (Amendment) Act, 2005 i.e, 23rd July, 2005 but appointed on contract basis, were, regularized as civil .servants, however, they were held not entitled for the benefits of pension or gratuity, except Contributory Provident Fund. It is pertinent to observe that the Regularization Act, 2009 is not applicable only to the service of particular group of employees, but has been enacted in interest of all the employees of the Province who were initially inducted in service on ad hoc or contract basis and were performing their duties on 31st December, 2008 or till the commencement of the Act ibid. Under the provision of the Regularization Act, 2009, more than six thousands employees were regularized by the Provincial Government, while more than hundreds employees of various departments, including project employees, succeeded in getting relief through judgments of this Court, passed in various writ petitions. Even the apex court in cases (supra) was pleased to extend the benefit of the Regularization Act, 2009 to the ad hoc or contract employees.
18. In light of the judgment of apex Court (supra), it is manifest that the judgment of this Court whereby employees of Agriculture Department were regularized on the strength of the Amendment Act, 2005 and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009, was upheld and as such the validity of Acts ibid, also received approbation of the apex court.
19. The status of the petitioners as contract employees has not been denied and from the record it is manifest that they have not yet been absorbed permanently in the department concerned where they have been appointed, therefore, they are entitled to the protection of the beneficial provision of subsection (2) of section 19 of the then N.-W.F.P. now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Amendment) Act, 2005 and their rights are further protected in a more effective manner by provisions of section 3 of the then N.-W.F.P. now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009 to which overriding effect has been given on all the rules and law to the contrary.
20. In light of the above discussion and taking guidance from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject, we have reached to an irresistible conclusion that under the amendment Act, 2005 and Regularization Act, 2009, the services of all the persons appointed on contract have been regularized. The validity of the Act supra is not in question and when undisputedly and admittedly the petitioners were appointed in the prescribed manner though on contract basis, but they otherwise fulfilled the requirements of the Amendment Act, 2005 as well as that of Regularization Act, 2009, they are entitled to the same and similar treatment as meted out to other similarly placed colleagues of the petitioners.
21. Resultantly, we admit and allow this petition and issue a writ to the respondents to treat the petitioners as regular employees of the Department under the N.-W.F.P. (Now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa)
Civil Servant Amendment Act, 2005 and N.-W.F.P. (Now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) Employees (Regularization of Service), Act, 2009. The respondents are further directed to issue a proper order/notification regarding regularization of the petitioners.