PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. The controversy involved in the present intra-court appeal relates to regularization of services of (fifteen) contingent employees engaged by Oil & Natural Gas Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ONGC).

2. ONGC issued Standing Orders on July 15, 1962 concerning contingent employees employed in various units of ONGC, the relevant portion whereof reads as under:-

“1. Application and date of commencement: These orders shall come into force on 15.7.1962 and shall apply to all workmen called contingent employees employed in the various units of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission). They shall not apply to regular employee of the Commission to whom Fundamental and Supplementary Rules, Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, Revised Leave Rules and Civil Service Regulations have been extended.

2. (i) Classification of Workmen – The contingent employee of the Commission shall hereafter be classified as:-

(a) Temporary

(b) Casual.

(ii) A workman who has been on the rolls of the Commission and has put in not less than 180 days of attendance in any period of 12 consecutive months shall be temporary workman, provided that a temporary workman who has put in not less than 240 days and who possesses the minimum qualification prescribed by the Commission may be considered for conversion as regular employee.

(iii) A workman who is neither temporary nor regular shall be considered as casual workman.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

3. ONGC engaged large number of persons between the years 1984 to 1986 as contingent employees to render services as Helper, Security Guard, Storekeeper, Khalasi, Attendant, Mechanic, Operator, Gardener etc. (essentially Class III and IV posts) at Jwalamukhi Project undertaken by ONGC in the State of Himachal Pradesh.

4. In view of the fact that Jwalamukhi Project undertaken by ONGC was to end in the year 1993 a decision was taken by ONGC to disengage the said contingent employees. Faced with the threat of their services being disengaged, thirty-nine contingent employees filed a writ petition, being CWP No. 1516 of 1989 before High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla; essentially seeking regularization of their services.

5. Vide order dated September 21, 1993 the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the said writ petition filed by the contingent employees, which order reads as under:-

“We need not go into the detailed facts of this case. Suffice it to say that the petitioners have not only claimed equal wages for equal work, but also regularization of their services by the respondents. The respondents have denied the case of the petitioner for regularization alleging that the petitioners belong to contingent staff of the respondents and their services were likely to end with the closure of the project. Therefore, for such a staff, regularization is not possible. As to equal wages for equal work, the plea of respondents is that the petitioners are not entitled to the same.

During the pendency of this writ petition, this Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for equal wages for equal work in the light of numerous Apex Courts decisions recorded in this Courts order dated 6.1.1988. Accordingly, the matter was considered and petitioners were paid equal to their counter-parts right from the date of this order. Thereafter, CMP No. 1541 of 1992 was moved, claiming revision in the wages. This application was decided on 18.11.1992 and the respondents were directed to pay the revised wages to the petitioners as well. As a matter of fact, these wages were paid from the date of the order and note dated 1.10.1991 as claimed.

In the application of the petitioners, we directed the respondents not only to retain the services of the petitioners but a