As per case facts, petitioners were initially appointed as part-time employees for a perennial job. They sought regularization, which led to multiple court orders, including a Supreme Court dismissal of ... the administration's appeal against regularization. However, the administration regularized them from a later date without full consequential benefits from their initial engagement. Petitioners filed a third application seeking these benefits. The question arose whether long-serving irregular employees in perennial roles are entitled to regularization and full consequential benefits from their initial appointment date, especially when higher courts have affirmed their claims. Finally, the High Court, modifying the Tribunal's order, held that petitioners should be regularized from their initial appointment date with all consequential benefits, as their services were continuous and their job perennial, and previous higher court orders supported this.