14] It is an admitted position that the Respondent has already retired in 2010 and he was also further promoted after the impugned order was passed. However, as regards to the judgments of the Apex Court on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in the case of Registrar General of India & Anr. v. Thippa Setty (supra) , in the said judgment, the Tribunal had given a direction to reguarlise the Respondent with effect from the date of promulgation of the recruitment rules or from the date of their appointment, depending on the seniority list. In view of the directions, the regularization was given with effect from the date on which the new recruitment rules promulgated on 11th May 1985. The Tribunal, however, by subsequent order directed that the regularization should be treated as having been confirmed regular status with effect from 5th February 1981, which was the date of their entry into the service as Investigators. In this context, the Apex Court observed that the employers had entered as ad-hoc appointees and the question was whether they should be regularized in service since they had worked as ad-hoc employees for a sufficiently long time. If the ad-hoc service is regularized from the backdate in this manner, it would have disturbed the seniority of the regularly appointed employees in the cadre, and, therefore the Apex Court was pleased to set aside the impugned order. In our view, the ratio of this
