1. Leave granted.

2. The appeals call in question the correctness of the order dated 04.08.2023 in Review Application No. 154 of 2023 and the order dated 12.07.2018 in Writ Appeal No. 52 of 2017.

3. By the order passed in the Writ Appeal, the High Court allowed the writ appeal of the respondent and directed the appellants to appoint the respondent as a Soil Conservation Field Assistant as per the G.O. Ms. No. 19 dated 05.01.1989.

4. When the matter came up before this Court on 15.09.2023, this Court passed the following order:

                   "This Court on 15th September, 2023, while issuing notice to the respondent, observed as follows: "Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent was engaged as a Nominal Muster Roll employee from 1977 to 1990 when he was disengaged. In terms of the impugned order, the petitioner has been directed to appoint the respondent as a Field Assistant even though he never worked after 1990 and attained the age of superannuation in 2017.."

                   Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks time to take instructions as to how the respondent can be compensated, as admittedly he had worked for 13 years when his services were terminated in the year 1990. Adjourned to 23rd March, 2026."

5. It is undisputed by the appellants that the respondent had worked from 1977 to 1990, i.e. for a period of 13 years. The case of the appellants was that the respondent was engaged as a Nominal Muster Roll Employee. On the other hand, the case of the respondent was that under G.O. Ms. No. 19 dated 05.01.1989, h e was entitled to be appointed as a Soil Conservation Field Assistant.

6. When the matter came up again before this Court on 13.02.2026, this Court granted time to the appellants to seek instructions as to how the respondent could be compensated, it being admitted that he had worked for 13 years.

7. Considering the distance time, reappointment of the respondent is not an option.

8. In view of the order dated 13.02.2026 passed by this Court, suggesting that the respondent be compensated in monetary terms, we heard Mr. M.F. Philip, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. B. Karunakaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

9. Having considered the matter, we are of the opinion that the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- be paid by the appellants to the respondent as compensation. We direct that the appellants shall pay the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- to the respondent.

10. This order is passed to exercise our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

11. We make it clear that this order is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent.

12. In view of what we have stated hereinabove, while setting aside the impugned order directing the employment of the respondent as a Soil Conservation Field Assistant, we direct that the respondent shall be paid a lumpsum of Rs.12,00,000/- as compensation.

13. The aforesaid amount shall be paid to the respondent on or before 18.05.2026.

14. In the event of default on the part of the appellants, the amount of Rs.12,00, 000/- shall carry the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.

15. The appeals are partly allowed in the above terms.

16. List the matter for reporting compliance on 25.05.2026.