SBCWP NO.2561/97. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2561/1997. Damu Lal Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order:- February 18, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri S.N. Meena for the petitioner. Shri Gajanand Manav Mishra, Deputy Government Counsel. ***** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition as filed way back in the year 1997 with the prayer that respondents be directed to pay him salary in regular pay scale applicable to the post of Chowkidar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was initially engaged as Chowkidar in the hostel run by the Social Welfare Department of the Government at Nichalagarh on 4/8/1995 whereby he worked upto 31/8/1996. Even then, appointed as Uniara in District Tonk in the hostel run by the same department. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that ever since his appointment, SBCWP NO.2561/97. 2 petitioner has been continuously working with the respondents and that his case is now ought to be considered in terms of the Rajasthan Banks Service (Amendment) Rules, 2000 was promulgated by the government dated 8/7/2009. Aforesaid rules have been framed so as to make benefit of one time regulations to the employees who had been working with the respondents for more than 10 years on ad hoc/temporary basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner has been working with the respondents without there being any interim order passed by this court, they have to consider his case for regularisation. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that petitioner was merely engaged on part time by the Mess Committee and was not employed by the respondents. Hostels run by the social welfare department are maintained by the Mess Committee which is constituted of the students with Superintendent of Hostel to facilitate the smooth working in such hostel. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that if the petitioner has been continuing with the respondents for last 15 years, he become entitled to consideration of his case in terms of the government circular dated 8/7/2009. Argument that petitioner was engaged by the mess committee and that too on SBCWP NO.2561/97. 3 part time basis has not been upheld by this court in similar cases. Petitioner is therefore set at liberty to make a representation to the respondents giving all the details of service which they shall consider and pass appropriate orders and decide the same within three months from the date copy of this order is produced before them. Aforesaid scheme was formulated by the government in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, in para 53 of which, it was held by the Supreme Court that if an employee is continued with the services, even on part time/ad hoc/daily wage basis, more than 10 years without there being any interim order by the court, case of such an employee should be considered as a one time measure for giving him regular pay scale. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil