"36. There are some of the employees who har, .l not been regularized in spite of having rendered the serv :es for 3040 or more years whereas they have been supe -annuated. As they have worked in the work-charged es., blishment, not against any particular project, their service .; ought to have been regularized under the Government lstructions and even as per the decision of this Court i 'r State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court lthe said decision has laid down that in case services rave been rendered for more than ten years without the : ,ver of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the; ,rvices be regularized of such employees. In the facts ()t the case, those employees who have worked for ten ye,t s oT more should have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consrderation of regularizatic r as oth ers have been regularized, we direct that their s ,:rvices be treated as a regular one. However, it is mad,: clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues ot d ifference in wages had they been continued in servirr regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. Tlr y sha Il be entitled to receive the pension as if they hal ere tired m ular m n n il servt ces rendered bv them rioht from the dav thel entered
