Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.B. Singhal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Amit Krishan, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. By means of the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 23rd June, 2011, passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, in Claim Petition No. 174 of 2011, by which the Tribunal has directed to consider the regularisation of the services of the respondents with effect from the date of existence of the vacancies, that is, 20th November, 2002, in accordance with the judgment of the High Court and also to grant all the consequential benefits arising out of it.

3. The brief facts, giving rise to the controversy involved in the present writ petition, are that the respondents were appointed as the Assistant Managers in the Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority on contractual basis initially for a period of 89 days. It is not clear from the pleadings whether the respondents have been engaged on the contractual basis pursuant to any advertisement, by following the proper procedure or not. It appears that the appointments of the respondents were not made against sanctioned vacant posts. However, their engagements have been subsequently extended from time to time with some break. It is informed that the initial engagements of the respondents were made on 23rd November, 1994.

4. The petitioner No. 1, published an advertisement dated 20th November, 2002, inviting application for engagement on the post of Assistant Manager (Civil). The respondent No. 1, who has been been engaged on the contractual basis, filed the writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 54072 of 2002, seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Advertisement/Notification dated 20.11.2002 (Annexure 1 to this writ petition) as published in Hindi Daily Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran, issued under the signature of Dy. Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority in so far as the post of Assistant Managers (Civil) are concerned.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to regularize the service of the petitioner on the post of Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority within the period to be specified by this Hon’ble Court.

(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to pay the petitioner his regular monthly salary in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 for the post of Assistant Manager (Civil) including arrear of salary w.e.f. The date of his initial appointment.

(iv) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(v) award the costs of the petition to the petitioner.”

5. The petitioners contested the reliefs claimed by the respondent No. 1 on the ground that the petitioner was engaged on the contractual basis under the terms and conditions and he had no right whatsoever to claim regularisation of his services. The counter-affidavit filed by the petitioners is Annexure-1 to the present writ petition. It appears that some similarly situated persons have also filed the writ petitions. All such writ petitions have been connected alongwith the Writ Petition No. 54072 of 2002 and have been decided finally by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 28th September, 2005. While deciding the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge has observed as under:

“There is another aspect of the matter. The petitioner has been working since 1993 continuously, except for the artificial break of a day or two. In view of the long period of service rendered by the petitioner, and in view of the fact, that there was a requirement of work, it has assumed a certain kind of permanency. Further, in view of the fact that in the past, the authority had regularised the services of the co