As per case facts, employees hired on daily wages sought regularization from May 2000 under a government order which outlined a scheme for their permanent appointment after one year of ... consolidated pay. However, a later order mandated regularization from its issue date in February 2006, creating a five-year delay. Petitioners challenged this, demanding regularization from May 2000 with benefits. Respondents argued against retrospective regularization and asserted that regularization was conferred by the later order. The question arose whether regularization should be from May 2000 as per the initial scheme or from February 2006, given prior Full Bench judgments. Finally, the court, acknowledging prior Full Bench rulings, held that the subsequent order could not override the original scheme. It directed the Corporation to regularize petitioners from May 2000, fitting them into available vacancies from May 1999, taking the additional period as service for benefits but denying back-wages. This decision remains subject to the final outcome of any Supreme Court orders.