JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—

1.Leave granted.

2.These appeals involving similar questions of law and facts were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The short question which arises for consideration herein is as to whether the respondents herein having been appointed on an ad-hoc basis could be treated to have been regularized in their services.

We may notice individual fact of the matters before us:-

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.24124/2004

Respondent herein was appointed as a Typist on 5.9.1985 and worked for more than ten years without break in service. Under these circumstances, he sought direction from appellants herein to regularize his services with all consequential benefits. His claim was denied by the appellants. Aggrieved by the same, respondent approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal which by its order dated 22.9.2003 directed that the question of regularization of the services of the respondent be examined by the appellants with reference to records and decision thereon be taken within 90 days thereafter. Challenging the order of the tribunal, appellant-State approached the High Court which by its order dated 9.8.2004