As per case facts, the petitioner was appointed as a Registrar on compassionate grounds in 1987, subject to passing an Accounts Training Examination and qualifying a Public Service Commission Examination. ... She worked regularly for 28 years until her retirement in 2014. Her services were never regularized, leading to the denial of pension and other retiral benefits. The petitioner contended that the conditions for regularization were beyond her control, as the department clarified that Accounts Training was not required for her post and the PSC never advertised for the Registrar position. She sought to set aside the order denying regularization and requested that her services be treated as regular from her initial appointment date. The question arose whether an employee who has served for a significant period on an ad-hoc basis, with conditions for regularization beyond their control, should be denied regularization and associated retiral benefits, especially when similar cases have been decided in favor of regularization. Finally, the Court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned order and directing the respondents to treat the petitioner's ad-hoc service as regular and pensionable from her initial appointment date. The Court emphasized that denying pensionary benefits to an employee who rendered continuous service for decades is unreasonable, citing precedents that support regularization for irregularly appointed persons in sanctioned posts who have served for over ten years without court orders. The Court also directed the payment of all consequential and retiral benefits, including arrears of pension with interest, and compensation for harassment, along with considering her for promotion benefits.